Sociopath Community

Legga said: 

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.

I've argued what I've provided is clearly more reasonable than what you provided. It's not more complicated than that.

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 logic. You're failing logic 101.

I claim we can determine what is reasonable and what is unreasonable by relying on collective knowledge etc. There's an element of subjectivity to that, depending on how you view it.

Please quote your logic textbooks on what they consider the rules regarding reasonable assumptions in non-scientific disagreements to be.

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.

Of course it's not impossible to prove the nationality of the odd person. I literally have Cad's dox, for example. But I can't do that for most people on my list or on the forum, which is why I've pushed for lower standards of verifiable evidence.

I will accept that a person on your list is Swedish if you can provide evidence for that particular person. I will even agree your entire list is reasonable if you can provide reasonable evidence for at least one of the people I disagree with, ie. the unreasonable ones. This is the condition I obviously agreed to, not that the mere existence of evidence for one person (Sensy) means you don't have to provide it for those other people (Fake Sensy, User and Ed) we're actually arguing about.

That was your only claim?

In this case, may I verify that your stance is that you have never claimed/said any of the following:

1. I need to provide Inquirer evidence, because Inquirer evidence is better.
2. The reason you did not provide stringent evidence is because it's unreasonable / impossible on an internet forum.
3. Your own evidence is "reasonable", while mine is not.
5. We can't prove anything here, and that is why more stringent evidence should not be used.
6. The standard/quality for evidence I want is too high and can't be met.
7. Proving with verifiable evidence that anonymous people online are of a certain nationality is next to impossible.
8. If I have any ideas about how to realistically procure verifiable evidence then I should share.
9. My argument in my paper is pointless if I can't convincingly argue that there are 6-7 Swedes on the forum.
10. I demand far more comprehensive evidence than what any of us can reasonably provide.
11. I am required to give "Inquirer evidence or verifiable evidence" to prove my point.
12. In response to asking what you would find reasonable: "Something similar to what I gave as my reasons. For example, if Ed had a reputation for being a Swedish kickboxer (just ask a few people and see what they think) then I'd accept that."
13. What you think is unreasonable is demanding such stringent evidence that it's impossible for us to prove anything.
14. You wanted "reasonable" evidence, but failed to define what that is. I gave a criteria that could be tested, and you accepted.
15. If I prove my criteria can be used to provide evidence, then you will find the criteria acceptable.

And that if I can quote you in fact contradicting yourself on any of these then you admit you're wrong?

Inquirer. Just give it up. You promised to accept my criteria for evidence if I demonstrate it is not unreasonable. Now give John Johnson evidence or verifiable evidence.

Inquirer said: 

I've argued what I've provided is clearly more reasonable than what you provided. It's not more complicated than that.

And my list, John Johnson list, is more reasonable than yours. Can you give me John Johnson evidence or verifiable evidence?

Do you not see how stupid your argument is?

John jacob jingleheimer smit

Please quote your logic textbooks on what they consider the rules regarding reasonable assumptions in non-scientific disagreements to be.

https://www.amazon.com/Data-Analysis-Bayesian-Devinderjit-Sivia/product-reviews/0198568320?tag=duckduckgo-d-20

You should not need to read more than 1-3 pages into the introduction. Maybe you don't even need to go past preface.

Here:

p(H|d_I)

p(H|d_L)

That's Inquirer and Legga evaluation of hypothesis 'H'.

As you can see, the information/data/background accessible by Inquirer, 'd_I", and Legga, 'd_L', are different. We can still evaluate the likelihood of hypothesis H based on information accessible to both of us.

 Good enough?

Inquirer said:

(or at least 1-2 of those that are unreasonable)

All the names are equally unproven as far as this topic is concerned, so proving any of them would be more "reasonable" than where we are now. 

I literally have Cad's dox, for example.

We only know that you've said you have his dox, you could be banking completely off of a rumor and otherwise don't know how to find it for example. 

Please quote your logic textbooks on what they consider the rules regarding reasonable assumptions in non-scientific disagreements to be.

Study this, please. 

You'll not just save yourself time, but other people as well. 

Legga said: 

That was your only claim?

Sigh. Where did I say that was my only claim?

Those points are all pretty much trying to explain the same single point anyway. You're back to trying to get me on semantics instead of tackling the argument.

Inquirer. Just give it up. You promised to accept my criteria for evidence if I demonstrate it is not unreasonable. Now give John Johnson evidence or verifiable evidence.

I have accepted your criteria as good enough to demonstrate that your list is, in fact, reasonable. But obviously you'll have to actually provide that evidence or we're still left where we began, with your list being unreasonable.

As you can see, the information/data/background accessible by Inquirer, 'd_I", and Legga, 'd_L', are different. We can still evaluate the likelihood of hypothesis H based on information accessible to both of us.

 Good enough?

That's not how you quote... Regardless, your argument requires that we have to have the same information accessible to us both and that if one of us don't the other has to provide it. However, when I say your list is unreasonable I am assuming we share a certain amount of information (aka collective/common knowledge) and base the comparison off that. I don't have to provide this knowledge in order to perform a rough comparison.

John Johnson said: 

Inquirer said: 

I've argued what I've provided is clearly more reasonable than what you provided. It's not more complicated than that.

And my list, John Johnson list, is more reasonable than yours. Can you give me John Johnson evidence or verifiable evidence?

Do you not see how stupid your argument is?

No, it's not more reasonable. That's the point, we can say these things because we have knowledge about things on SC and things in general. Just because you lack some information does not mean you can claim anything's equally reasonable.

Turncoat said: 

Inquirer said:

(or at least 1-2 of those that are unreasonable)

All the names are equally unproven as far as this topic is concerned, so proving any of them would be more "reasonable" than where we are now.

Again, I am arguing we can determine reasonableness without verifying or proving the evidence (at least in the way you want to).

I literally have Cad's dox, for example.

We only know that you've said you have his dox, you could be banking completely off of a rumor and otherwise don't know how to find it for example.

It's reasonable to think people on SC have heard of it and that's why it carries weight without being produced. Anyway, my point is that I obviously didn't mean that Legga could prove Sensy's nationality and then apply that to the other people on his list.

Please quote your logic textbooks on what they consider the rules regarding reasonable assumptions in non-scientific disagreements to be.

Study this, please.

You'll not just save yourself time, but other people as well.

You'd actually save me (and us) time if you could move on from: "without verifiable proof anything, no matter how absurd, is equally reasonable".

You're stuck there.

You're stuck justifying flimsy "evidence" through semantic arguments, while I'm stuck trying to correct your faulty behavior, sitting on how to end this but knowing that this is what you need instead.

You're trying to squeak by right now with words like "unreasonable" as if to gauge the presentation of evidence for some "more expected" people to be worth less than the more outlandish ones. This is you trying to be sneaky so that you can pre-prepare the means of not taking Legga's next answers as seriously, as as long as the "more expected" ones are equally defined, they're objectively of equal worth. 

Frankly, if he were to prove even just one name through objective means, he'd have a superior list to yours by default even if it's one of the names that is also on your list. 

Please read the debate fallacies and learn them, it'll help for more than just this topic. 

Inquirer said:

It's reasonable to think people on SC have heard of it and that's why it carries weight without being produced.

I've never seen his dox myself beyond a few random photographs, I just have the rumor mill. I also think it'd be safe to say that a lot of people haven't directly seen it, and are going off of reputation heuristics to give benefit of the doubt towards those who claim they did. 

Do you figure Legga's seen it? Why should he take your word on it? It's illogical. 

I don't have to provide this knowledge in order to perform a rough comparison.

You spend a surprising amount of effort justifying not having to put in effort.