Sociopath Community

Inquirer said:

Now you're pushing this false dichotomy where either any evidence must be acceptable or we have to treat them all strictly scientifically.

You are incorrect.

I pointed out that if you claim that you wanted me to merely give "one or more reasons for believing that something is or is not true", then this is ill-defined. The common way to define `evidence` is that it is verifiable, for obvious reasons.

In simpler terms, I'm pointing out that you are resorting to semantics to get away with not admitting you abandoned your stance.

And why should evidence not be treated scientifically?

Read my posts again and you'll find that I ask for reasonable evidence/reasoning. Nothing more.

It seems to me like reasonable evidence would be something I can trust.

I will never be able to satisfy you that someone is who they say they are unless I dox them, if even that is enough for you. You haven't even commented on the fact that a Swedish person you didn't even account for (an extra Swede!) has actually been doxed and shown to be Swedish. You also don't consider Sensy and I talking in a Skype call at the same time to be enough so how could I possibly persuade you? What would it actually take for you to be convinced?

Don't be redinkulous, Inquirer.

You can use your own argument: Give me proof that all these people have spoken/written Swedish consistently over the forum years and/or claimed they are Swedish.

Website links will do.

I'm not whining, I'm making fun of you. You started the name calling and spend far more time doing it than I. You write paragraphs while I write sentences. I think it's pretty clear who's losing the argument.

This is yet another fallacy. Writing paragraphs vs writing sentences has nothing to do with winning or losing an argument.

This is sad.

PalePeach said: 

Legga said: 

I'm quite certain MissC is Swedish too.

From context in other's comments i was under the impression Inq and MissC were married irl, but maybe that was just a troll like Tryp and Seerx being married...

TPG said:

notice how inquirer and missc stopped flirting as legga began his tirade against them both, weird

I always saw Misscomm as more like some sort of tribal worshipper of the Totem that Inquirer's created. 

Basically like a cheerleader, a bard of his message, or a cleric of his order, she's always clinging to his coattails while he basically just passively accepts the praise. She worships an idea of him, which is why tarnishing said idea has her act funny sometimes (ie: noting moments where Inq has had strong emotions). 

I could intervene and end this, but there's a lesson at the end.

Good luck.

Spatial Mind said: 

I could intervene and end this

Why would you want to? 

Legga said: 

You are incorrect.

I pointed out that if you claim that you wanted me to merely give "one or more reasons for believing that something is or is not true", then this is ill-defined. The common way to define `evidence` is that it is verifiable, for obvious reasons.

In simpler terms, I'm pointing out that you are resorting to semantics to get away with not admitting you abandoned your stance.

No, what you are doing is doubling down on your definition of "evidence". My intention behind the word was always to have you provide actual reasons, not to force you to prove everything.

And why should evidence not be treated scientifically?

Because we can't actually prove anything here.

Read my posts again and you'll find that I ask for reasonable evidence/reasoning. Nothing more.

It seems to me like reasonable evidence would be something I can trust.

You don't even trust something as reasonable as Sensy and I speaking at the same time in the same call to prove we're two people.

Don't be redinkulous, Inquirer.

You can use your own argument: Give me proof that all these people have spoken/written Swedish consistently over the forum years and/or claimed they are Swedish.

Website links will do.

I already told you I can't give you that because Luna killed the old site, plus most of it happened in chat. What you can do is ask around if people agree with what I've claimed about Swedes or not. Ani and Missy can probably be found on Discord too.

You seem to trust TC, why don't you ask him what he thinks?

This is yet another fallacy. Writing paragraphs vs writing sentences has nothing to do with winning or losing an argument.

This is sad.

Keep writing them then and ignore the actual discussion. I've asked you multiple times to explain why you think Ed is a Swede but you refuse.

Inquirer said: 

Legga said: 

Don't be redinkulous, Inquirer.

You can use your own argument: Give me proof that all these people have spoken/written Swedish consistently over the forum years and/or claimed they are Swedish.

Website links will do.

I already told you I can't give you that because Luna killed the old site, plus most of it happened in chat. What you can do is ask around if people agree with what I've claimed about Swedes or not. Ani and Missy can probably be found on Discord too.

You seem to trust TC, why don't you ask him what he thinks?

I never really paid much attention to the stuff that wasn't in 'merican English. 

What do you think of Ed then? Do you think he's Swedish?

Inquirer said: 

What do you think of Ed then? 

Ed's spent so much time selling a false image that I'm not even sure what to believe (beyond having had experience with his personality solely). At points I'm stuck questioning if he believes his own oddly shaped narrative as opposed to it being that he's trying to sell us lies about himself and his life.

Is he delusional or untrustworthy? It's hard to tell. 

Inquirer said:

Do you think he's Swedish?

He at least sells that English is not his... best language. 

Even the smallest questions that I ask Legga to prove anything about himself he ignores.

I guess I'm simply someone not to respect and notice in Legga's eyes. Then why the heck do I owe him anything? That grade of selfishness is repulsive. He can't even pretend to be a little nice and cooperative.

Why does Legga obsess with me, when he steps on me and disrespects me to this point? It's like he created another Sensy in his mind he is thinking of and I'm right here and to him his idea of me is what he focuses on, something that only exists in his own mind.

Me, as a person, is totally ignored. It must be some quite rare mental disorder that guy has.

This has been sidetracked:

1. I presented the paper
2. You claim that the people I presented are not Swedish, and demanded evidence
3. I said I can not provide evidence. Instead, I suggest people can decide for themselves.
4. You call me an idiot for not providing evidence.
5. You make the claim that there are X number of Swedes
6. I ask you to provide evidence.
7. You fail to provide evidence.
8. You argue that evidence does not need to be verifiable.
9. I then claim I can also provide unverifiable evidence.