Sociopath Community

You failed to answer this question, by the way:

Yes, that's how it works. You need to demonstrate that you've understood the counter arguments and came to your own conclusions after fairly weighing the evidence from all sides. Or are you saying you haven't studied the counter arguments, haven't studied the evidence from all sides, and haven't fairly weighted the evidence before coming to your conclusions? If so, do you see why I might think that's a problem?

Let me repeat it:

are you saying you haven't studied the counter arguments, haven't studied the evidence from all sides, and haven't fairly weighted the evidence before coming to your conclusions?

Can you answer the question?

I.e., have you fairly weighted the evidence from all sides before coming to your conclusions?

AppleGenius said: 

Turncoat summarized it quite well.

To clarify, I did not say that people are correct if they post counter arguments to their claims. I said that they are likely incorrect if they have only looked into arguments that support their beliefs.

That's moronic though. This isn't theory, nor is it a hypothesis.

Demonstrating an understanding of the counter arguments and evidence to the contrary provides some rationale that the person is not simply looking for evidence to support their foregone conclusions but instead formed their opinion from a neutral, unbiased standpoint. I'm saying this is a minimal requirement for rational people to take you seriously, and you haven't demonstrated even that.

Dude. From the time you came here, you were sucking TC's balls, then ended up redacting your whole agreeing with him, cause there wasn't anything for you to agree with. You're the one that fails at minimal requirements here.

And no, it isn't required for people to post counter arguments, just because someone is filled with doubt and too lazy to do their own research.

As for your claim that it's just me saying this: Not just me; it's all of science. For example, you may check here what the typical summary paragraph for Nature is:
https://www.nature.com/documents/nature-summary-paragraph.pdf
Notice, in particular, the introduction to the field, the more detailed background, problem formulation in terms of the broader field, tying your results to the general context, and the broader perspective. Your abstract ticks off only light blue and green boxes.

You claimed "everyone here is disagreeing with me", I said no it's just you. Now you're carrying with this irrelevant bullshit.

Where's the counter arguments for that paper you produced btw ?

You can also google `why is literature review important?`, and you will be provided with ample reasons, such as those listed in this one:
https://www.econtentpro.com/blog/the-literature-review/55

Credibility

Perhaps one of the most evident perks of crafting a thorough literature review is the fact that you will establish your credibility with the reader, and in doing so, you become an authority on the topic. Think about it; scholars will be scarcely convinced if you fail to demonstrate that you’re knowledgeable and qualified to contribute to the general academic conversation. Be careful not to write the review as if you’re biased in favor of certain arguments over others, especially because the basis of good and trustworthy research is the consideration of varying theoretical perspectives. In other words, your literature review should offer a critical analysis that examines every viewpoint and reasoning. In doing so, you will also capture the attention of several researchers whom may have otherwise seen your paper as yet another contribution aligned with disparate theories.

 You're not arguing against me. You're arguing against the scientific method. I'm happy to defend the scientific methodology more, if you wish me to. None of this is my `personal belief.` Call it unoriginal, but I'd be willing to bet my chips in a process that has been validated over hundreds of years and deemed the most consistently accurate method of getting to the truth as of yet. If you happen to be right, I want to know, so we can debunk the scientific method and revolutionize science.

Yeah you'd be happy to defend that other scientific methodology more cause so far you've been idiotic. Even though it's as you say, not your personal belief, and I get it, you want to signal how you have an open ear even to things you don't believe in, but you still failed at it yourself, as your approach has been lazy.

Inq used to say the same thing. I personally don't burden others with having to proven anything, because I'll confirm their claims myself.

My claim is hemp is the most useful plant in the world, and it's output is impressive.

So basically you're just going to state you're right and expect people to confirm that you're right? You have every right to do that, but then rational people have no reason to take your claims seriously and you're also at odds with the scientific method. If you're fine with that, then go ahead.

I don't recall stating that I'm right. Currently I'm stating that you're lazy and dumb. Here's reality. You're not always getting a counter argument from the very source that makes a claim. This is also true in the field of science. You want to talk about XY and X chromosomes, in modern science you're not getting any counter argument from the real deal. Not from the textbook, nor the teacher.

Again this isn't theory.

You're assuming this thread is theoretical, which it isn't. Hemp's quality and what it can do is known to us.

I am unconvinced of the parts about a global oil company conspiracy, etc, not so much what hemp can and can't do.

I'm unconvinced you're even intelligent. You believe that if Big oil finds hemp better, it'll switch to that. I explained why that wouldn't be the case. Big oil has to sell something people can't easily obtain, unless they buy it. Hemp isn't like that. Plus if hemp was farmed more frequently, it would only turn dirt cheap, and people would even grow it themselves. Big oil would get destroyed due to basic supply and demand.

That, and YOU, never applied a counter argument to your assumption ( Assumptions one after the other.Occam's razor doesn't work for you )

AppleGenius said: 

Says you.

Not me; all of science says so. I'm just acting on behalf of science.

No. It's you. I know actual scientists and we have excellent conversations. Here's your claims so far...

- You strongly agree with TC ( But you Redacted that cause you were caught being an idiot with nothing to agree to )

- You say I never made a case ( But it's enough for you to argue with me )

- You say Big oil would've switched to hemp ( Another assumption with lack of knowledge about supply and demand )

- Now you expect me to write a paper based on the nature summary paragraph. Or else you can't compute from being stuck in doubt or obtain any knowledge from stroking your keyboard.

- Some other shit I'm not even bringing up

You literally expect historical events to be scientifically formulated. 

Yet another assumption, which is why Occam's razor would suggest I'm right.

Also it's not my job to provide opposing arguments when I give credit where it's due.

Would you agree with me that it's more likely that, after someone demonstrates that they have understood the entire field of study and all opposing views, and demonstrated how their own view places itself within this broader field and is not at conflict with the opposing evidence, that they are more likely to be right than they were before they demonstrated that they were knowledgeable about the field? I.e., would you agree that someone knowledgeable and thus qualified to contribute to the general conversation is more likely to be right than someone who is not knowledgeable about the topic? (Notice the careful use of "more likely" instead of "is right")

Fuck dude. If you just wanted me to write an 800 page textbook for the OP, why didn't you say so ?

Not really. In reality most interactions are forward and progressive. Those who require counter arguments to everything and expect otherd to confirm everything for them, will learn later than sooner.

It has been hundreds of years, and science still relies on literature review. You may be right that perhaps all of science will one day learn from your wisdom, but that day hasn't come yet; on the contrary, thus far science has rejected your epistemology and all evidence points towards your epistemology being unreliable. In the future, perhaps the burden of proof will be on those who want to reject claims. That may be the case in the future, but it hasn't happened yet.

I addressed that already with an explination.

Hemp isn't as cheap as it would've been, and to date the hydro cell is the best solution.

Hemp wouldn't be more profitable.

You don't understand marketing. It's basically supply and demand. The more of the commodity, the cheaper it will be, due to the demand. Oil companies contend with other oil companies. The price of oil never goes down, because it is a limited resource. Hemp is obtainable in 3 months, and can be obtainable daily.

Is your argument that hemp would be way more useful, more accessible, and also cheaper, but somehow it wouldn't make it more profitable for non-oil companies? You're right that I don't understand your argument anymore, and your stubborness in refusing to admit basic flaws in your epistemology isn't helping. Help me understand, and I may even agree with you.

Heh. You won't agree with me unless the 6 o clock news broadcasts it and tells your what to think. ( That is my first assumption )

I'll say it again, since you never digested it when I mentioned it to TC last week. It amazed me how you still don't get it.

Hemp was once widely used for more things. Even the dollar bill was made from hemp paper, which is high quality. Longer lifespan, takes more abuse. Cloth, etc. It was widely used. Used like crazy okay.

 "What I'm saying is". If Hemp wasn't stigmatized, It would've been farmed more. If it's production is high, then it as a resource WILL be cheaper. But that isn't the case. Supply and demand. When the supply is low, the price goes up.

Today hemp is a small industry among certain items, like clothing. There was no reason for the world to farm hemp in excess. AND, the stigma surrounding it is one of the deluded negatives that caused our civilization to stop farming and using hemp as excessively as we used to.

The way marketing works. If something is high in supply. Those selling will undercut one another. The highest seller WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SELL when their produce can be purchased for cheaper.

And it can get even cheaper since hemp is a plant that will grow anywhere in the world, and people can even grow it in their garden if they want. Oil and precious medals and other rare materials, are rare and cannot simply be found anywhere.  

If hemp is cheap and widely used, it wouldn't be as profitable for any business to sell these products. It isn't the case now, cause hemp itself isn't farmed like it used to be and it is expensive. The Law of Supply and Demand is a very basic law. How can you not know this ?

You need to do your own research.

You admit I posted evidence but it's insufficient. You also think this subject is theoretical when it's really political and economic.

The burden of proof is on you, if you even want proof. When I want proof, I get up and get it myself, while you sit around waiting for service.

The burden of proof is on me for what? Can you summarize the basic idea behind the burden of proof, to demonstrate that you understand what it means?

To answer your question. Yes I can summarize it if I feel like it. 

Inq used to drop the same argument. Burden of proof. TC did it before too. Meanwhile you have the world at your finger tips and can research it, but you'd rather sit in doubt and claim it's my job to run around and bring you links and papers from other people. Truth is. No it isn't. It's not important to me what you believe, or what you doubt. It's also not important to me what you know, or who you are.

I say the burden of proof is on you, because I'm not obliged to write essays and prove "everything" I say. The first thing you expected me to prove, was, nothing. All there was to work with was TC's question which was "Why is cannabis coming out now, and not sooner or further in the future" Like damn. You legit wanted me to prove that or something. I did give TC a history lesson, and he even understood it. He just doubts it. Heh TC is smarter than you.

Now you say burden of proof is on me again.

I'll give Inq some credit though. At least he started getting off his ass, and started keeping up with me doing his own research, and our debates became more productive, rather than talking about formalities and formats, and "oh science is holding my hand and I fight for science and you're fighting against all of science"

If I'm interested in what I hear. I'll go look it up myself, and not wait for some dude I'm arguing with to go fetch it for me. That's pathetic. Be more like Inq and evolve.

Btw, what makes you think I assume that this subject is theoretical?

 You want counter arguments for my claims, which you don't believe I've made a case. You also started bringing up Occam's razor like a poser. The reason why occam's razor works against you, is because you've made the most assumptions.
 

AppleGenius said: 

You failed to answer this question, by the way:

Yes, that's how it works. You need to demonstrate that you've understood the counter arguments and came to your own conclusions after fairly weighing the evidence from all sides. Or are you saying you haven't studied the counter arguments, haven't studied the evidence from all sides, and haven't fairly weighted the evidence before coming to your conclusions? If so, do you see why I might think that's a problem?

Let me repeat it:

are you saying you haven't studied the counter arguments, haven't studied the evidence from all sides, and haven't fairly weighted the evidence before coming to your conclusions?

Can you answer the question?

I.e., have you fairly weighted the evidence from all sides before coming to your conclusions?

Have I not made it clear that I don't have to demonstrate anything ?

It doesn't make or break me what you think. It brings me no relieve if you wisened up. I do feel more blessed than you do. You either learn, or you don't. Accept or reject.

.

"Oh I demand that you demonstrate this at once, or else you'll look wrong !"

I say go ahead and follow your script. I'm looking for real minds. I want people who keep up properly, not lag behind waiting for me to fulfil their demands, then the conversation turns into how the conversation went. 

You can go be an intellectual poser with your ass on the sofa unwilling to research something because you demand I do it in the name of science, crying "burden of proof is on you".

Am I right ? Of course I am. And I know what I'm talking about. You can disagree at face value if you want, and MAYBE, you can be sure about yourself. I'm not obliged to do your work. I make my claim, and don't expect me to bend backwards for people who annoy me with "do you know this ? did you even that"

I'm good.

Golden_Eagle said: 

AppleGenius said: 

Turncoat summarized it quite well.

To clarify, I did not say that people are correct if they post counter arguments to their claims. I said that they are likely incorrect if they have only looked into arguments that support their beliefs.

That's moronic though. This isn't theory, nor is it a hypothesis.

Demonstrating an understanding of the counter arguments and evidence to the contrary provides some rationale that the person is not simply looking for evidence to support their foregone conclusions but instead formed their opinion from a neutral, unbiased standpoint. I'm saying this is a minimal requirement for rational people to take you seriously, and you haven't demonstrated even that.

Dude. From the time you came here, you were sucking TC's balls, then ended up redacting your whole agreeing with him, cause there wasn't anything for you to agree with. You're the one that fails at minimal requirements here.

It's not about sides, it's about methodology.

He is not posing as someone who knows, but rather as a skeptic towards your conclusions, as rather than present his own reasons as to why you are wrong he is instead looking at how you came to this conclusion. Through his and my only posing questions and suspicions we are not posing as experts, but rather as researchers at most in the process of finding answers. 

AppleGenius said:

Perhaps one of the most evident perks of crafting a thorough literature review is the fact that you will establish your credibility with the reader, and in doing so, you become an authority on the topic.

Through your posting the answer it invites the room for it to be questioned. If it were a truly finite answer that you possessed, then there'd be answers within your work to dissuade them, rather than presumed character assessments and motives of those present as to why they why they disagree with you. 

In short, if you want people to believe you, then you need to know how to be credible. 

As for your claim that it's just me saying this: Not just me; it's all of science. For example, you may check here what the typical summary paragraph for Nature is:
https://www.nature.com/documents/nature-summary-paragraph.pdf
Notice, in particular, the introduction to the field, the more detailed background, problem formulation in terms of the broader field, tying your results to the general context, and the broader perspective. Your abstract ticks off only light blue and green boxes.

You claimed "everyone here is disagreeing with me", I said no it's just you. Now you're carrying with this irrelevant bullshit.

Facts are independent of the Bandwagon, that would be a fallacy. A single person can be correct within a room of stubborn, incorrect people.

This however is more about checking how you came to that conclusion to test it's validity. 


The rest of your post is effectively you ripping into his character rather than sticking to topic, so I'm going to ignore it for now. It's literally just insults so that you don't have to take his skepticism more seriously, ironically with you parroting at him that he's lazy over how he effectively called you lazy first (when you didn't look up counter-arguments), followed by "NO U". 

Golden_Eagle said:

The way marketing works. If something is high in supply. Those selling will undercut one another. The highest seller WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SELL when their produce can be purchased for cheaper.

And it can get even cheaper since hemp is a plant that will grow anywhere in the world, and people can even grow it in their garden if they want. Oil and precious medals and other rare materials, are rare and cannot simply be found anywhere.  

If hemp is cheap and widely used, it wouldn't be as profitable for any business to sell these products. It isn't the case now, cause hemp itself isn't farmed like it used to be and it is expensive.

What's to stop people from making it abundant again though if it grows in any conditions? 

Golden_Eagle said:

Heh TC is smarter than you.

Not really, I'm just more jaded from structurally having had similar enough talks with you already. 

Total piece of shit

Turncoat said: 

Golden_Eagle said:

Heh TC is smarter than you.

Not really, I'm just more jaded from structurally having had similar enough talks with you already. 

 With you it's the same thing as Legga. The difference is he's asking for me to reformat my presentation and post a textbook complete with shit not found in textbooks like counter argumrnts, and other chores.

Maninist said: 

Turncoat said: 

Golden_Eagle said:

Heh TC is smarter than you.

Not really, I'm just more jaded from structurally having had similar enough talks with you already. 

 With you it's the same thing as Legga. The difference is he's asking for me to reformat my presentation and post a textbook complete with shit not found in textbooks like counter argumrnts, and other chores.

He's just asking for credibility.