Sociopath Community

what is this nerd shit here

Turncoat said: 

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.

I believe you are trying to shoehorn my argument into your idea of what this debate is about, over and over, without ever considering the bigger picture.

Say I made two claims: the sky is blue and Obama is secretly a reptile in human skin. You call these claims unreasonable, countering that the sky is blue and Obama is actually human.

According to you, 1) unless you prove Obama is human our claims are of equal value and 2) my claims would be superior to yours if I could prove the sky is blue. Is this accurate?

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. 

As an aside, I am actually skeptical of your claim that you never saw Cad's dox. Vultus sat in chat and posted it for months.

Whether Legga's seen it or not is irrelevant. I'm sure he lacks knowledge of a lot of things I'd consider common knowledge around here.

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

And you seem surprisingly confused about why I'm reluctant to do it, despite the two good reasons I've given you. All you counter back with is basically "you're lazy", though since your perspective seems to necessitate verifiable evidence I guess I can understand that you think I'm just stalling.

Inquirer said: 

Turncoat said: 

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.

I believe you are trying to shoehorn my argument into your idea of what this debate is about, over and over, without ever considering the bigger picture.

No, I'm pointing out your attempt to pre-deflect Legga's future answers. You're setting the room for justification traps for why you won't have to take his future arguments seriously, which is something I'd expect more out of someone trying to be intellectually dishonest. 

Say I made two claims: the sky is blue and Obama is secretly a reptile in human skin. You call these claims unreasonable, countering that the sky is blue and Obama is actually human. 

According to you, 1) unless you prove Obama is human our claims are of equal value and 2) my claims would be superior to yours if I could prove the sky is blue. Is this accurate? 

These things can be proven, and if it got to such a point I'd bother with it for the sake of argument instead of filibustering like you're doing. 

This kind of stuff is required praxis when debating Flat-Earthers and the like. 

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. 

As an aside, I am actually skeptical of your claim that you never saw Cad's dox. Vultus sat in chat and posted it for months. 

How active am I in SC chat? 

Whether Legga's seen it or not is irrelevant. I'm sure he lacks knowledge of a lot of things I'd consider common knowledge around here.

It's not "common knowledge", it's a reputation heuristic on the backs of what few have seen it. 

For a debate 1-on-1, you can't just fall back on "common knowledge" when your opponent otherwise lacks it, rendering it no longer common but instead of a 50% spread. 

I could call all sorts of things you haven't seen "common knowledge", and what, you'd just take me for my word being backed by a bandwagon of people who figure it makes sense to them without proof? 

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

And you seem surprisingly confused about why I'm reluctant to do it, despite the two good reasons I've given you.

"Good reasons". 

All you counter back with is basically "you're lazy", though since your perspective seems to necessitate verifiable evidence I guess I can understand that you think I'm just stalling.

Mostly, if you have the stamina to say why you don't wanna, wouldn't it have saved time and potentially even effort to actually try instead? 

Inquirer says: "Just because you lack some information does not mean you can claim anything's equally reasonable."

It is equally valid to ask someone to just believe you, as it is to ask someone to believe what they've seen? Are you retarded? Explain yourself.

And before you go on a tangent and waste another month, let me clarify: If I debunk this, will you FINALLY admit you're wrong, as you already promised you would do?

Ps. Was your claim that each person on your list has spoken on vocaroo?

Inquirer said: 

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.

I was literally shitposting in my OP 

Turncoat said:

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

Turncoat said:

It's not "common knowledge", it's a reputation heuristic on the backs of what few have seen it.

For a debate 1-on-1, you can't just fall back on "common knowledge" when your opponent otherwise lacks it, rendering it no longer common but instead of a 50% spread.

I could call all sorts of things you haven't seen "common knowledge", and what, you'd just take me for my word being backed by a bandwagon of people who figure it makes sense to them without proof?

It's not rocket science, Inq. When defending your reasoning, your argument is "but there is some evidence!" When attacking my reasoning, your argument is "there needs to be good evidence!" I even asked to confirm that you indeed meant good evidence. And you confirmed. You can't wiggle yourself out of it anymore.

You keep touting that Inquirer evidence is better.  "Good" evidence by your definition is anything better than what I gave. I gave you a more neutral test for what is "good" evidence. You accepted. And then you ate your own words and backed out.

Time to admit you're wrong, Inq, as you promised.

Inquirer said:

Say I made two claims: the sky is blue and Obama is secretly a reptile in human skin. You call these claims unreasonable, countering that the sky is blue and Obama is actually human.

According to you, 1) unless you prove Obama is human our claims are of equal value and 2) my claims would be superior to yours if I could prove the sky is blue. Is this accurate?

Turncoat said: 

No, I'm pointing out your attempt to pre-deflect Legga's future answers. You're setting the room for justification traps for why you won't have to take his future arguments seriously, which is something I'd expect more out of someone trying to be intellectually dishonest.

As seen from your perspective, yes. A perspective you seemingly can't look beyond. Even if you disagree with my idea of reasonableness/common knowledge you should still see that my arguments make sense in the context of what I argue, but instead you keep assuming I am playing your game but want to stall or be dishonest.

Say I made two claims: the sky is blue and Obama is secretly a reptile in human skin. You call these claims unreasonable, countering that the sky is blue and Obama is actually human. 

According to you, 1) unless you prove Obama is human our claims are of equal value and 2) my claims would be superior to yours if I could prove the sky is blue. Is this accurate? 

These things can be proven, and if it got to such a point I'd bother with it for the sake of argument instead of filibustering like you're doing. 

This kind of stuff is required praxis when debating Flat-Earthers and the like.

It's not filibustering if we're specifically debating whether we can judge reasonableness without verifiable evidence, it'd be counter to the sake of argument. If I started to dig up verifiable evidence then the focus of the whole debate would shift away from my argument that Legga's list was unreasonable on the face of it.

I disagree it is required praxis with flat-earthers. There comes a point where somebody is unreasonable enough that you're free to dismiss them out of hand.

So can I assume my example is an accurate description of your position?

How active am I in SC chat?

So you never read it, just the threads? You missed a number of threads he posted too.

It's not "common knowledge", it's a reputation heuristic on the backs of what few have seen it.

Are you disagreeing with the concept of common knowledge here or what actually is common knowledge?

For a debate 1-on-1, you can't just fall back on "common knowledge" when your opponent otherwise lacks it, rendering it no longer common but instead of a 50% spread. 

I could call all sorts of things you haven't seen "common knowledge", and what, you'd just take me for my word being backed by a bandwagon of people who figure it makes sense to them without proof?

A 1-on-1 debate is couched within a larger context where common knowledge does exist. Your example on flat-earthers is a good one, where I believe we can reject them for being unreasonable.

If your idea of common knowledge is backed by a bunch of people then I'd say that lends credence to that actually being true, at least within the group itself. It doesn't make the knowledge itself necessarily true but it does make it reasonable to consider or take seriously.

Mostly, if you have the stamina to say why you don't wanna, wouldn't it have saved time and potentially even effort to actually try instead?

It'd distract from the argument and I'd most likely do it in vain anyway since Legga would reject it.

Legga said: 

But now you're contradicting, what, 15 different things you clearly said (see my bullet points). You'll be seen as a complete sham if you resort to semantics on all of them.

I'm not contradicting any of them. I accepted your criteria of evidence as reasonable for the express purpose of proving your list, person by person, not so you could prove one obvious case and call it a day.

It's not rocket science, Inq. When defending your reasoning, your argument is "but there is some evidence!" When attacking my reasoning, your argument is "there needs to be good evidence!" I even asked to confirm that you indeed meant good evidence. And you confirmed. You can't wiggle yourself out of it anymore.

I split things up into reasoning and verifiable evidence because you guys whined. That's fine. I am defending my reasoning on the basis that it is reasonable (common knowledge) and I am attacking your list because it is unreasonable, both in terms of reasoning and verifiable evidence. To prove what's reasonable we can ask people what they think.

When it comes to verifiable evidence I have explained I think your level is too stringent, but I have also listed what I believe I can find. If you accept my level of verifiable evidence then we could go that route instead of arguing what common knowledge is.

You keep touting that Inquirer evidence is better.  "Good" evidence by your definition is anything better than what I gave. I gave you a more neutral test for what is "good" evidence. You accepted. And then you ate your own words and backed out.

What I provided was more reasonable than what you provided, that's basically it. Your "neutral test" was a copy of what I already stated about Sensy so of course I'd accept that evidence for her. You are free to use even more stringent verifiable evidence to prove the people on your list if you think you can do that and I would accept it too. The point is that if you can prove your list (the people on your list) then obviously I'd have to accept it as reasonable.

Inquirer said:

Say I made two claims: the sky is blue and Obama is secretly a reptile in human skin. You call these claims unreasonable, countering that the sky is blue and Obama is actually human.

According to you, 1) unless you prove Obama is human our claims are of equal value and 2) my claims would be superior to yours if I could prove the sky is blue. Is this accurate?

-refuses to answer-

Why not just reply to my example and make your position on reasonableness clear?

John Johnson said: 

Inquirer says: "Just because you lack some information does not mean you can claim anything's equally reasonable."

It is equally valid to ask someone to just believe you, as it is to ask someone to believe what they've seen? Are you retarded? Explain yourself.

Not valid, reasonable. Given common knowledge it is reasonable to expect you to possess certain information.

And before you go on a tangent and waste another month, let me clarify: If I debunk this, will you FINALLY admit you're wrong, as you already promised you would do?

If you debunk my argument about reasonableness, sure. You can also still prove your list (for every person) and I'll admit I was wrong about calling your list unreasonable.

Ps. Was your claim that each person on your list has spoken on vocaroo?

No.