Sociopath Community

Turncoat said: 

Your arguments are "fighting ghosts". Do you even understand why John Johnson evidence is superior to yours for instance, or are you instead going to waste more pages stamping your feet? It's like you can't even read the words being put in front of you.

Who is even arguing over how reasonable his original list was anymore!?

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.

This stops being the case once you've thrown yourself into a debate with one however.

The argument about if it is or isn't common knowledge is an irrelevant one if your opponent lacks that information, and in this case you're calling him on something I don't even have myself and then have done nothing to provide that information to support your points.

So if you found yourself on a Gangstalking forum, you'd overtime start to accept their insane ideas about color coded manipulation techniques? If you found yourself on a Scientology forum, you'd find yourself questioning your Thetin count and Entheta outputs? If you found yourself on a Christian forum, you'd run with the whole "he can walk on water" and immaculate conception crap?

It'd distract from the argument to present actual evidence? What kind of madlad logic is this?

This pretty clearly shows you don't understand the argument. Providing verifiable evidence for my list wouldn't make my claim that his list was inherently unreasonable anymore true and it'd definitely not answer the question whether we can actually use "reasonableness" as a criteria in the first place. All it'd do is prove that my list was reasonable, which is of secondary importance.

Legga said: 

Let me just re-post this instead, since you didn't reply, except by stating that you indeed hold to your claims.

I did reply by clearly stating that I never accepted your "criteria" in the way you're trying to use it. You initially 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?"

I understood this to ask if I would accept your level of evidence as reasonable if you used it to prove your list. The entire list, all people on it. Proving just Sensy doesn't prove the list.

This should be an answer to all your 15 points.

Is it not a valid/reasonable view to hold that, for example, a person is not proven to be Swedish unless they've spoken on vocaroo/Skype and you've heard it?

You could argue that, yes, but then we're back to us disagreeing about what level of evidence is (im)possible to find. I've made my stance there clear.

Furthermore, why do you find it irritating that I have applied it only to one person? Will you be satisfied if I show the criteria can be applied to more people than just one person?

Because it proves nothing to cherry pick an 'easy' person on your list to prove and then claim that level of evidence is reasonable for all other people too. It also doesn't say anything about the list's reasonableness either. I will however be satisfied if you can prove at least one of the unreasonable people on your list (User, Fake Sensy, Ed, MissC).

Btw Inquirer: Can you give evidence for the Cadaver dox? You even say you have it.

 Yes, but what would it accomplish?

It's impossible, I see why Legga's given up. You're somehow still on his original list. 

Inquirer said:

That's the point of the entire debate... I claimed my list was more reasonable than his and you disagreed, and then I've defended and explained why I think I can make such a claim for the rest of the thread.

The John Johnson list is superior to yours, and the answers I thought he was going to go with were also superior in one way or another. It's not me "fighting ghosts" when it's interrelational to Legga's points, it's you "fighting ghosts" when you attack a historical strawman that's long been torn apart even by Legga himself. 

As for the rest of this, I'd just be reposting the same fallacy jpegs and surprise quotes I had in the last posts. Your "reasoning" has already been addressed, and then you address it with the same fallacious "reasoning" in a circular fashion. 

You can reread my older posts and see me addressing what you've said. Just pretend those were in reply to your most recent posts. Seriously, every fallacy I posted is strewn across your reply to me, clean it. 

Turncoat said: 

It's impossible, I see why Legga's given up. You're somehow still on his original list.

Yes, of course I'm still on the list. I never left it, you guys did, and you haven't proved why I can't claim Legga's being unreasonable in the first place. All you've done is counter-claim that reasonableness is irrelevant (yet both of you refuse to answer questions on that when directly asked).

You do realize that it doesn't really matter whether Legga's list (or mine for that matter) is actually true to discuss whether the lists are reasonable at first glance, right?

So Legga is still on it. But so is Inky. He's as obsessed.

Probably the world record in foreplay.

lol this thread is hilarious. Inq kept Legga in his trap and wore him down.  

MissCommunication said: 

lol this thread is hilarious. Inq kept Legga in his trap and wore him down.  

What. 

I win. I'm not Swedish.

user22212 said: 

I win. I'm not Swedish.

Are you sure about that? 

Until not too long ago I didn't know that I was 1/50th Swedish. 

Turncoat said: 

user22212 said: 

I win. I'm not Swedish.

Are you sure about that? 

Until not too long ago I didn't know that I was 1/50th Swedish. 

 You're negating your boy Legga's theories. XD