Sociopath Community

Inquirer, aren't you embarrassed by how poorly constructed your evidence is?

Here is my proposed list:

At least SensitiveSoul is Swedish

Reasons: SensitiveSoul has claimed to be Swedish, SensitiveSoul has read/written in Swedish well beyond Google Translate-level (including in chat at times), has displayed an intimate knowledge of Sweden, and Sensy's vocaroos, which you've heard, show she has a Swedish accent. You have access to this information.

Your list, on the other hand, is pure conjecture. It's a joke. Nobody told you to use unverifiable evidence like a jackass. I define "John Johnson evidence" which is way better than "Inquirer evidence". So you are now an idiot by your own logic.

This is getting sad Inquirer. You're backing out on your own promise.

Any Jack and John Johnson can now barge in with their own list and call you an idiot. Which is exactly what you did.

You've been going on for around 10 pages how what I've asked of you is impossible (e.g., vocaroo recordings, consistent use of Swedish, etc). Now I just proved it's possible. You promised that if I provide you with evidence fulfilling what I've asked of you, you'd find it reasonable.

You're a sore loser.

No but there's still ZERO proof that Inquirer is SensitiveSoul, and as such you have been EXPOSED regardless. 

Your entire theory is FALSE! 

Xadem said: 

No but there's still ZERO proof that Inquirer is SensitiveSoul, and as such you have been EXPOSED regardless. 

Your entire theory is FALSE! 

 Shh... Xadem, I'll get to it in a minute. Or a month. I find this to be entertaining, actually.

Legga said: 

Xadem said: 

No but there's still ZERO proof that Inquirer is SensitiveSoul, and as such you have been EXPOSED regardless. 

Your entire theory is FALSE! 

 Shh... Xadem, I'll get to it in a minute. Or a month. I find this to be entertaining, actually.

"for if a man shall suppose the true conjunction to be false, it is not the conjunction which is hindered, but the man who has been deceived about it. If you proceed then from these opinions, you will be mild in temper to him who reviles you: for say on each occasion, It seemed so to him"

That moment when I read Legga's proposal... and think he'd do one of two potentially different things, only to see a third thing done instead. 

Legga said: 

This is getting sad Inquirer. You're backing out on your own promise.

Any Jack and John Johnson can now barge in with their own list and call you an idiot. Which is exactly what you did.

You've been going on for around 10 pages how what I've asked of you is impossible (e.g., vocaroo recordings, consistent use of Swedish, etc). Now I just proved it's possible. You promised that if I provide you with evidence fulfilling what I've asked of you, you'd find it reasonable.

You're a sore loser.

How am I backing out of my promise? If you actually find (not just state) similar evidence to what you listed about Sensy for ALL people on your list (or at least 1-2 of those that are unreasonable) then I will do the same for mine or admit I was wrong. It can't be that difficult understanding what I'm asking of you here, so why this game of semantics?

John Johnson said: 

Your list, on the other hand, is pure conjecture. It's a joke. Nobody told you to use unverifiable evidence like a jackass. I define "John Johnson evidence" which is way better than "Inquirer evidence". So you are now an idiot by your own logic.

My list is not pure conjecture. I've argued what is reasonable can be determined from collective knowledge and common sense, so you can't just make anything up and pretend it's equally valid. Not sure how many times I need to say this.

Inquirer said: 

John Johnson said: 

Your list, on the other hand, is pure conjecture. It's a joke. Nobody told you to use unverifiable evidence like a jackass. I define "John Johnson evidence" which is way better than "Inquirer evidence". So you are now an idiot by your own logic.

My list is not pure conjecture. I've argued what is reasonable can be determined from collective knowledge and common sense, so you can't just make anything up and pretend it's equally valid. Not sure how many times I need to say this.

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

Do you agree that my list of Swedes is based on much more stringent evidence than your hypothetical list?

Is it then not more reasonable? I have never even seen most of the people on your list speak Swedish. You have seen SensitiveSoul speak on vocaroo, and many other things. This is much more stringent.

Your problem is that you're trying to sell your list as universal, which goes against Bayesian logic.

I'd be happy to add more people on that list if you provide proof of their vocaroo recordings (and the other things I listed). But you haven't provided any.

Inquirer said: 

John Johnson said: 

Your list, on the other hand, is pure conjecture. It's a joke. Nobody told you to use unverifiable evidence like a jackass. I define "John Johnson evidence" which is way better than "Inquirer evidence". So you are now an idiot by your own logic.

My list is not pure conjecture. I've argued what is reasonable can be determined from collective knowledge and common sense, so you can't just make anything up and pretend it's equally valid. Not sure how many times I need to say this.

Inquirer, just give it up. This is pathetic. You argued for some 5+ pages how "Inquirer evidence is better than Legga evidence." This was your main argument against having to actually justify the holes in your logic. I can quote you on the many occasions you did this if it means you'll admit you're wrong.

Your whole stance is subjective. You're trying to sell something that is by definition subjective as universal. You're going against Bayesian logic. I literally need to any basic textbook on logic and quote it to counter your argument. You're failing logic 101.Having a subjective view is reasonable, and it is common sense. Acting as if your subjective opinion should be universally adhered to makes no fucking sense. It certainly doesn't fall under "common sense." I don't know why I need to explain such a simple concept to you over and over and over.

You accepted that it is reasonable evidence if I show that it is possible to provide evidence adhering to that criteria. It is not impossible to prove that people here are Swedish. I've shown you that. You accepted the condition. Whether or not I show it for person X or person Y doesn't matter. Either the criteria is possible / reasonable, or it is not. Which person you apply it to is irrelevant.