• SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

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

    Sealioning is when you’ve already produced it and I ask for it again or more, not when I ask for evidence that you’re not producing because you never have and it doesn’t exist.

    • gregorum
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-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 (Latincirculus 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

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

          • SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

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

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

            • gregorum
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-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.

                • gregorum
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  That’s your problem, not mine. Unlike you, I have no problem backing up my claims… and very well know better than to tell ridiculous lies.

                  • SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    6 months ago

                    You continue to refuse to back up your claims.

                    You’re acting like the anti-abortion activists right now, being completely unable to hear the other side of the conversation.

                    I’m acting like the pro-choice people putting out well thought out arguments backed up by facts and logic and a heathy dose of freedom and personal responsibility.