• gregorum@lemm.eeEnglish
    2·
    6 months ago

    You have to respond to the request with evidence first.

    I have. Repeatedly. I even quoted the answer I gave an hour ago to this question in the comment you replied to. Theres that amnesia again!

    I’m just asking for evidence repeatedly that you refuse to produce repeatedly because it doesn’t exist

    No, you’re just Sealioning

    Sealioning (also sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity (“I’m just trying to have a debate”), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter.[1][2][3][4] It may take the form of “incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate”,[5] and has been likened to a  denial-of-service attack targeted at human beings.[6] The term originated with a 2014 strip of the webcomicWondermark by David Malki,[7] which The Independent called “the most apt description of Twitter you’ll ever see”.

      • gregorum@lemm.eeEnglish
        2·
        6 months ago

        I just re-read all 127 comments in this thread and haven’t found any evidence that you’ve produced.

        In the past three or so minutes since your last comment? That’s an obvious lie.

        Sealioning is when you’ve already produced it

        I have. There’s that amnesia again!

        and I ask for it again or more

        Which is exactly what you keep doing

        not when I ask for evidence that you’re not producing because you never have and it doesn’t exist.

        This is a scenario that you just invented and which didn’t happen. The evidence in the comments here confirms this. Your failure to accept the evidence and the fact is not evidence that I did not present facts and evidence. You’re in inability to understand that is also not my responsibility.

        It’s also an example of the Circular reasoning fallacy

        Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, “circle in proving”;[1] also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[2] Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy, but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade. Other ways to express this are that there is no reason to accept the premises unless one already believes the conclusion, or that the premises provide no independent ground or evidence for the conclusion.[3] Circular reasoning is closely related to begging the question, and in modern usage the two generally refer to the same thing.[4]

          • gregorum@lemm.eeEnglish
            2·
            6 months ago

            Another personal attack because you can’t make a rational argument.

              • gregorum@lemm.eeEnglish
                2·
                6 months ago

                You told me I couldn’t read 127 comment in the nearly seven minutes between comments.

                No I didn’t. I said that your claim was an obvious lie. You’re welcome to prove otherwise with evidence, but, given the body of your behavior here during this discussion, I’m certain you would lie in order to “win” or “score points” in this argument, regardless of how silly or pointless the lie. your entire comment history here represents a dishonest representation of yourself when convenient.

                I did and had time to respond to you but you don’t believe me because you must read slower.

                There’s that zero-sum worldview again, where the only way you could do better is if someone else does worse. That’s the zero-sum bias

                Zero-sum bias is a cognitive bias towards zero-sum thinking; it is people’s tendency to intuitively judge that a situation is zero-sum, even when this is not the case.[4] This bias promotes zero-sum fallacies, false beliefs that situations are zero-sum. Such fallacies can cause other false judgements and poor decisions.[5][6] In economics, “zero-sum fallacy” generally refers to the fixed-pie fallacy.

                Do you often invent fantasies about strangers online when you’ve gambled foolishly on an argument you can’t win? Seems like a coping mechanism with very little payoff and a lot of toxicity.