LogFAQs > #962696836

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I don't recall saying they heard about it -from- Duckbear.

Your belief in the "somebody read a Duckbear post" theory hinges on that.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I know, despite outlining how to determine which mention came first you started treating it as unnecessary and that the number of mentions alone proves anything.

"It should cause you to wonder if your belief is accurate" is not in any way equivalent to "it proves that your belief is wrong."

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

So if someone says something it must be true?

Are you ignoring "empirically verifiable" because you don't know what it means, or because you don't know how to make the point you're trying to make while incorporating it?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Now, my goal is to make you regret arguing with me.

Gaining a basic understanding of the world around you is a better goal than that, too.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

That's not saying much. I know of a bus stop where there's regularly a drunk man yelling unintelligibly. I would trust him more than I trust the media.

That sounds like a you problem.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Yes. What that is not, is me trying trying to convince other people of that. To back up your earlier statement you have to demonstrate that I'm trying to prove something.

If you make a claim, you're trying to prove something. That you're unwilling to follow it up is just you having commitment issues, not anything that reflects the underlying logic of the statement.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

You compared a situation were the earliness has been determined to a situation where the earliness has not been determined. The amount of work to reach that determination doesn't matter. Whether the determination has been made is the crucial aspect that makes the analogy flawed.

But the chronology has been determined. As I said, everybody already knows your claim is nonsense. That's common knowledge. It's also common knowledge that Rowling did not invent wizards: Nobody needs to look up her birth date and the publication dates of other fantasy media to know this. Similarly, nobody needs to look up Duckbear's posting history to know that he didn't invent Qanon, except apparently you.

The analogy is describing how absurd your claim is, not how conclusively those disagreeing have proven it to be absurd. If you'd like an analogy of your request for conclusive proof, consider somebody walking into a university-level calculus class and demanding that the teacher complete a full mathematical proof of every involved concept (including basic arithmetic) before proceeding with the lecture material: You're obviously just wasting everybody's time for no reason.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...
Says the person who starts an argument with me over something like this.

Despite your arbitrary insistence on clinging to nonsense and refusing to learn how to form properly substantiated beliefs like a functional human being, this is still substantially less work than proving that Duckbear didn't invent Qanon would be.