Sociopath Community

Let's analyze if I actually strawmaned you, shall we? I'd be pulling a strawman if I attacked an argument you never made.

I insinuated that your reason for not believing is an inability to come up with alternative hypotheses. This is what you said in response to:

"What you're suggesting is flushing down billions upon billions of dollars down the toilet to test a hypothesis which has no evidence to support it and no near-term promises." - StillPork

"How doesn't it? " - Turncoat

Conclusion: Not a strawman.

I claimed that you're resorting to methodologies that are less reliable than twin studies. You kept quoting the Flynn effect, an effect which scientists do not even agree the cause of.

Conclusion: Not a strawman.

I asked you if you would count the fact that most societies throughout the generations were lead by men as evidence that men are superior leaders. There is no insinuated claim here, so I have no idea how this question could "misrepresent" your position when it's a simple question designed to expose intellectual dishonesty.

Conclusion: Not a strawman.

So how did strawman you?

Also why do you think I am avoiding tackling points being made? Did I not just address three of your arguments in my post in detail?

Imagine for a second that my point about epistemology was correct and your whole methodology to go about making your argument, constructing reasoning and your understanding of what constitutes evidence was flawed and you're just ADHD-kid style running around spouting arguments left and right without any clear methodology, do you think I would be justified to sit down and focus on the fallacy instead of also running around like a chicken shooting down every argument your flawed mind comes up with on the fly without evidence?

Your view of good conversation that will lead to truth:

"I believe in twin studies look at this"

"I believe in Flynn effect look at this"

"I believe in racial IQ gap look at this"

"but look at this black results go down if they think they are black"

"then again blacks in africa also have low IQ"

"but evolution can correct for that"

"you have no evidence for that"

"I do too"

"look at this study discussed on BBC that shows the flynn effect could becaused by eating too much eggs"

"women have all the positive traits of men but none of the weaknesses"

"men are better leaders here's proof"

"but look at this proof"

"what proof? How does that prove anything?"

"how doesn't it?"

"that's not an answer"

"you're strawmaning me"

ad absurdum ad complexity ad infinitum. You can literally use google to "support" any point by "research" because the nature of research is that it will investigate the possibilities favoring *both hypotheses* the question is what the scientific consensus is. That's the important point. 

My view of good conversation:

"Ok there are many studies that give contradictory results. Why don't we focus on those that we both agree we can trust, like twin studies, and see what the scientific consensus of results is?"

"Ok let's look at twin studies then."

and

"How would we go about determining if men or women are better leaders? Would this constitute evidence?"

"Sure, but it is not conclusive. Here is how I would go about investigating this in a way that surely you would agree."

Which of those models is better in your opinion?

StillPork said: 

Let's analyze if I actually strawmaned you, shall we? I'd be pulling a strawman if I attacked an argument you never made.

Turning it into a different-yet-similar argument is still a form of strawmanning, and your common response in lieu of ignoring the majority is to create a false equivalence (like comparing IQ to height, how ridiculous). Instead of visiting my points individually, you're typically visiting them demographically while otherwise making demands that don't address what's been said. 

You're fighting points not that you even think they made, but rather that you figure would bait the opponent into further effort. 

I claimed that you're resorting to methodologies that are less reliable than twin studies. You kept quoting the Flynn effect, an effect which scientists do not even agree the cause of.

Conclusion: Not a strawman.

I went further than that, but you'd rather not focus on that. 

Unlike others where it'd be more apparent otherwise, I'm not saying you didn't read it. Your angle's closer to choosing to ignore it before successively accusing your opponents of choosing to ignore things, which shows me you aren't simply missing those details naturally, but rather are utilizing this as a tactic to cover your own ass. When it's done more naturally there's a certain sense of blindness that isn't present in this tongue-in-cheek demonstration. 

There's an inauthenticity to your approach, and until you go further than simply demanding that others try harder it's going to continue to appear nonreciprocal. 

So how did strawman you?

You're attempting to create a structure where your opponents do all the work for you while you do none, and you accomplish this by fighting things they typically didn't even really say. 

You're fighting points that weren't even made in order to avoid points you'd rather not tackle, and you're even at this point trying to divert it over how you're asking for everything while others "refuse" to deliver. It's just more red flags to the bulls for framework, meant to bait effort where you don't need to apply any of your own. 

StillPork said: 

Also why do you think I am avoiding tackling points being made? Did I not just address three of your arguments in my post in detail?

If we were to score this based on content-by-content delivery, how many points have I made versus the number you have, and how many points between us has the other at least attempted to address? In formal debate circles, you would not be being taken seriously with this approach, at all. 

You aren't really trying to argue, you're just trying to bait. If you want better, more effective bait, then you have to be more willing to play the role, really give it your all ala Andy Kaufman. You're going to need a lot more 4chan and 8kun if you want to bait people over the words of a Stormfag. 

Imagine for a second that my point about epistemology was correct and your whole methodology to go about making your argument

So now you're asking me to imagine your fantasy? Why should I do more than you're willing to do, simply because I showed a stronger initial effort at the start? 

constructing reasoning and your understanding of what constitutes evidence was flawed and you're just ADHD-kid style running around spouting arguments left and right without any clear methodology, do you think I would be justified to sit down and focus on the fallacy instead of also running around like a chicken shooting down every argument your flawed mind comes up with on the fly without evidence?

You're sitting here calling it all "SJW parroting", so at this point the character you're playing has already chosen to disregard that attempt at evidence before it's even responded to (as opposed to read). There's been what could potentially be called evidence, but you've been locking yourself away from considering it (at least in-character). 

All this really amounts to from you is an Ad Hom, especially in conjunction with your posts preceding this one in your two main topics. You aren't even trying, so why should we continue to? 

Your view of good conversation that will lead to truth: "Haha, your SJW fantasy does not convince me. Try again."

Why should I continue to put in more effort than you're willing to after having gone this far with gauging your willingness to participate? It's almost entirely one-sided here with no potential gains on my end even beyond the room to practice rhetoric. 

I can't believe anyone is this stupid. Are you trolling me because I can't believe anyone can be this clueless.

Why do I not respond to all your points Let me repeat, now listen carefully and process it before you respond:

Imagine for a second that my point about epistemology was correct and your whole methodology to go about making your argument constructing reasoning and your understanding of what constitutes evidence was flawed and you're just ADHD-kid style running around spouting arguments left and right without any clear methodology, do you think I would be justified to sit down and focus on the fallacy instead of also running around like a chicken shooting down every argument your flawed mind comes up with on the fly without evidence?

You can replace "me" with "you" and try again if it makes processing this easier. Aren't you supposed to be good at English or something since you went full grammar nazi on me some time back when I speak 7 languages including two of the hardest languages in the owrld and you speak one?

Let me translate for you since your peanut brain is clearly incapable of comprehending: If I was shouting arguments left and right, quoting random studies, and you had a good reason to believe my starting point for gathering evidence was flawed, would it make more sense for you to ask me to justify my methodology instead of addressing every one of those 5+ per post arguments that had a flawed starting point?

Do you now understand the problem and why I am not addressing every one of those "studies" you're quoting.

Instead let me ask you this: Between my proposed methodology and yours, which one would be more likely to reach the correct answer in addressing whether for example objects can move faster than the speed of light or some other example where we can objectively agree what the correct answer is?

StillPork said:

Do you now understand the problem and why I am not addressing every one of those "studies" you're quoting.

The Argument From Ignorance Fallacy.

Lol. Wow this is sad.

What proposition have I asserted is true because it has not yet been proven false?

I'm done, you're obviously more interested in trolling than actually debating, I'll move on to someone else.