eliakon wrote:Pepsi Jedi wrote:eliakon wrote:
I would remind you of your collage days then
When you make a claim, it is YOUR burden of proof to support it.
1) You're not my professor. You can't give me a grade.
2) You're not my boss. You don't pay me.
3) You're an annonimous person on the internet that doesn't like me. Your opinion means slightly ever so slightly more than 'nothing'.
Now. I don't say number three to be mean. Just to have a base to make the next point.
I don't work for you. Especially not for free. My time is worth more to me. If you want me to do scut work, you'll need to pay me, because your opinion, doesn't motivate me enough to do so.
I see that you don't get how discussions work
While you like to just make wild claims all day and then demand that people prove you wrong the way Logic works is that you have to support your own claims.
The fact that you refuse to do so suggests that the claim is falsePepsi Jedi wrote:eliakon wrote:
Especially when you make a wild assertion that no one else believes.
Unfounded statement. Two or three annon people on the internet may not believe me. This doesn't mean it's not true, nor is it my job to educate you. If you'd like to pay me for my time, I'd be willing to though. On a contractor sort of basis. You still wouldn't be my 'boss' but you could lease my time for the purposes of education, should you meet the price.
Since not a single person here seems to believe that 1 in 4 people is a murderer waiting for the rule of law to fail, yeah it is a wild claim.Pepsi Jedi wrote:eliakon wrote:
You can either cite a source for your claim, or you can with draw your claim, or you can accept that everyone is going to believe that you are making stuff up.
It's not 'everyone'. It's you. I'm ok with you not believing me. Your opinion, again, only matters slightly less than nothing. In that it may prove intresting, only in context as to what any stranger thinks MAY be interesting, even if they're wrong.
Or perhaps its just that I like actually having discussions with people instead of just having them make wild claims that they then demand that I prove false.
I do that enough with kids, not with people that claim to be educated adults.Pepsi Jedi wrote:eliakon wrote:
It is not the duty of other people to research YOUR EVIDENCE FOR YOU to find out if you are lying or not.
You claim I'm lieing. Prove it.
Oh wait, you don't want to do work for free? Ahhh... I see where you're coming from. Still you're the one that's claiming it's a lie. Prove it.
Nah, I don't have to prove your lying. I just HAVE though proved that your claim is unfounded, unsupported and thus specious.
Which means that the rest of the adults in the conversation can go on with the real discussion using the actual citied examples that demonstrate that humanity is not a pack of murderers looking for a place to happen.Pepsi Jedi wrote:eliakon wrote:
It is your job to be able to support your own claim.
Nope because 1) you're not paying me. 2) I'm not seeking a grade from you for a degree. 3) You're not a person who's opnion matters highly to me. and 4) I don't work for you in any way.
It's not my job to do anything for you. Believe me or not. That's up to you
I should correct myself then
If you want people to BELIEVE you it is.
You can say anything you like sure. But it has no credibility in the slightest when you are unwilling and unable to support it.
When you claim "Oh trust me, your all wrong, I am right so I win the argument" and your "evidence" is that you say so...
Well, egotistical is a nice word for it. Logic has a whole series of fallacies for it as well.Pepsi Jedi wrote:eliakon wrote:
This is why, when someone here makes a claim about the game, THEY have to back it up, they can't just say "I'm right duh, look it up"
Most don't. That or they claim it's in a book and when you look it up you find they've lied or ommited things. I do this often. I'd say almost every week I check people's 'cited sources' on these boards and prove them wrong. Did it just this week two or three times with the claims that those tattoo dragons were native to earth and red giants were native to earth and neither were proben to be true. I do so alot. People don't expect others to have every book and actually check their sources.
I could spend time to cite sources but in that aspect, I choose not to. Not because I can't, but because it's too much like work. lol
I can check palladium books quick and prove people wrong. Doing so with real world things takes more time and effort. I choose not to expend my effort for free.
in short, proving I'm correct in terms of RPGs is easy and amusing.
Doing so for RL things would take effort and work and wouldn't be amusing. So unless I'm getting paid I don't waste time doing it.
Should you wish to make arrangements to pay me for my time. I would be more than happy to do so, but I'm guessing not.
For the record, if I did cite my sources. I doubt you'd believe them anyway, so I'm unsure why you would want me to, other than to waste my time. Something I choose not to do with out compensation.
Nah, I will just consider you a proven liar actually.
Since you have made specific, identifiable claims, claims that you say are true, and that you as an expert in the field can verify. But then you refuse to back up those claims, with any evidence, and are un able or unwilling to verify your supposed expertise.
Thus I will call BS on the entire claim.
You can feel free to support your wild claims if you like though. I would be most amused to see it, since in none of my classes on psychology, abnormal or normal, suggested that there was anything like the claim you are making.
Indeed the number I heard was that sociopathy such as you are describing is considered extremely rare on the order of one in thousands or tens of thousands. Especially considering that by your reasoning there should be literally hundreds of millions of murders every year which is easily verified as false.
Your entire post is meant to try and goad me into doing work you don't want to do for yourself, to waste my time in an effort to 'prove' something you won't believe even once it's proven to you.
As for your final claim though, that sociopaths are rare on the order of one in thousands or tens of of thousands. I can point you to a few places
2005 book 'The sociopath next door' by psychologist Martha Stout, estimates 4% of the US population are sociopaths. Which would be.. 4 people out of 100. Or 1 out of every 25 people. Not one in thousands or tens of thousands. Infact, with the population of 320,000,000 this would put the number of sociopaths at what.. almost 13,000,000. Yes.. thirteen million sociopaths in the US alone?
If that won't do you, you could check out the book written by a confessed sociopath M.E Thomas, "Confessions of a Sociopath"
You could check "The Psychopath test" by Jon Ronson
If you want other interesting reads you can look into the study on 'successful sociopaths', where in you'll find that many corporate leaders and even leaders of state clearly fall into the category. You might check out Stephnie Mullins-Sweatt
Get back to me once you've read all that, if you'd like more. That should keep you occupied for a little bit though and some of them are interesting reads.