Sociopath Community

MartinLooterKing said: 

its funny watching tc resort to wamen argument tactics when he feels like hes not winnin

I'd figure stooping to masculine tactics was closer to admitting defeat. 

Testosterone just beats their chests and closes their ears, the faith approach backed by emotional forwardness. I'd rather use logical structure than punch something. 

expsoed

It's 42 pages, and you feel unheard. Inquirer, I contested specific things you said and agreed to.

The problem is that you never conceded a single point, you just re-defined shit after the fact. You saying that you `conceded definitions` as if it's noble or something is laughable. What you mean to say is that you said one thing and then took it back when you were shown you are wrong -- without admitting it. Not once did you concede any points. This is the definition of `moving the goalpost` [1]. I've seen you do the same thing in other topics.

For example, I said `I would agree that we should find the best evidence accessible to us` (or something very similar) on page ~8 or so, and in your newest rant you're claiming that's (almost) the literal definition of `Inquirer evidence.`

You've already defined `Inquirer evidence.` I can't be arsed to dig up the post in which you do it. However, it was something like: Has spoken in Swedish and has intricate knowledge of the Swedish culture and blah blah blah. If those boxes are ticked off, then that person qualifies as a Swede. That was your definition of Inquirer evidence and how we've discussed it thus far.

You trying to re-define yet another word, even now, is laughable. I'm pedantic for a reason, and unlike you, I don't expect that people have to interpret my words like those of a wise but mysterious Indian guru. It's pointless to debate you when you just run around like a chicken in all directions and refuse to stand by what you've said previously.

I will refer you back to Turncoat's masterful compilation of the fallacies you've committed throughout this discussion. You know, I was going to explain your position to you in my own words to prove that I have indeed `heard` you. However, then I noticed you moved the goalpost for the 20th time, exactly like I predicted you would, and realized I'd just be wasting my time.

[1] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts#Goalposts_on_wheels

Legga said: 

The problem is that you never conceded a single point, you just re-defined shit after the fact. You saying that you `conceded definitions` as if it's noble or something is laughable. What you mean to say is that you said one thing and then took it back when you were shown you are wrong -- without admitting it. Not once did you concede any points.

 

[...]

You trying to re-define yet another word, even now, is laughable. I'm pedantic for a reason, and unlike you, I don't expect that people have to interpret my words like those of a wise but mysterious Indian guru. It's pointless to debate you when you just run around like a chicken in all directions and refuse to stand by what you've said previously.

I've conceded that I did not nail the definitions from the start. I've conceded that I should've explained my premise for this argument better. The reason I state this is not to come across as noble but to make it clear to you that these are areas you're going to have to give me tiny bit of slack so as to understand my actual point. A big part of this thread has been about you and TC complaining about my redefinitions, which to me shows a lack of understanding where I come from. Because the redefinitions I've made have not changed anything. I do them to express my intent better, that's all. I realize you're pedantic for a reason, and generally I laud that, but in this case I believe you're missing the forest for the trees.

I did define "Inquirer evidence" earlier in the thread and I stand by that. I'm not trying to redefine anything. It was an attempt from me to define a reasonable standard of evidence, something we could both agree on and that could actually be used. You pushed for something concrete and tangible and I gave you that.

But if my whole point is that you lack prior SC knowledge and that your list of Swedes showcase that ignorance, why would I care in the slightest if you used my standard to try to prove the most obvious person on your list? The one we both agreed on? The one we both talked to in the same call? That doesn't tell me anything. Yet you walk away as if you've proved a point that matters.

I wanted you to display reasonable SC knowledge. That's all. It's always been the goal and it's never changed. I actually don't really care how you do it as long as I find it reasonable. People acting in good faith can agree on such things rather easily and they don't have to hammer out a checkbox definition. Your example about trusting someone's dog claim was exactly that. But okay, we did nail down a definition for "Inquirer evidence". I wanted you to use it to show to me your list was reasonable, that your knowledge of SC was reasonable, not simply for you to go "ah-ha!" and inductively try to prove you could use my standard of evidence.

If you want to continue this debate I'm all for it, but it's only meaningful to me now if we actually think we can get something out of it. It's fine if you don't think that's possible.

Turncoat said: 

You both got ideas across, but agreed upon terms is kinda important when you aren't just winging a conversation isn't it?

They are. Apart from my explaining what I actually meant with "evidence" in this context I don't think there is any change or confusion regarding terms.

The only real contention here is over your perception of "feeling unheard" as if that were why you were being disagreed with. There's many other reasons to disagree with you and they've been expounded upon, HARD.

I simply disagree about the "many other reasons" and see them as all stemming from the same source of confusion. I've made this clear multiple times. So, if I believe that, then the only other reason (besides intentional trolling) is that you guys don't really listen or understand my point.

You see accommodation in lieu of stubborn mental tar pits as giving up? 

Is this just ego tug of war to you?

No. But you're asking me accept Legga's version of events and his premise, and if I do that my whole argument disappears. It's as if you asked me to stop pushing that 2+2=4 so hard and just acknowledge Legga's 2+2=5 perspective so we could move forward. What's the point of that?

Inquirer said: 

If you want to continue this debate I'm all for it, but it's only meaningful to me now if we actually think we can get something out of it. It's fine if you don't think that's possible.

No, nonono, not "continue the debate", this will just have it be another 40 pages of tar pits. 

Admit defeat over your former one so that you two can start fresh? Please? There's nothing for you to defend from the former setup at this point, and based on what you're asking from us you're likely just digging for material you can work with from continuing to be too lazy to read. 

Turncoat said: 

No, nonono, not "continue the debate", this will just have it be another 40 pages of tar pits. 

Admit defeat over your former one so that you two can start fresh? Please? There's nothing for you to defend from the former setup at this point, and based on what you're asking from us you're likely just digging for material you can work with from continuing to be too lazy to read.

What would we even talk about if we had a fresh start? Since I imagine you mean I should drop my argument then.

Inquirer said: 

Turncoat said: 

No, nonono, not "continue the debate", this will just have it be another 40 pages of tar pits. 

Admit defeat over your former one so that you two can start fresh? Please? There's nothing for you to defend from the former setup at this point, and based on what you're asking from us you're likely just digging for material you can work with from continuing to be too lazy to read.

What would we even talk about if we had a fresh start? Since I imagine you mean I should drop my argument then.

It could be the same topic even under newer terms or something, as otherwise there's no hope of you salvaging that train wreck, especially if you won't even give it a good skim. 

Under the former terms, you'd lost a long, long time before you kept digging that grave. 

I did re-read it all and I still think my argument holds up. I realize you think this debate is over but you're not giving me any good reason to restart it.

Inquirer said: 

you guys don't really listen or understand my point.