CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Yep he does. I once followed one of his aliases... Harvard made a argument.. Another account logged on.. Was viewing the debate.. Was the only one viewing the debate and Harvard was upvoted. The user then went offline without looking at any other debates.
I will say that clicking each user that logs on just to locate this illusory 'alias' sounds mighty desperate for someone who does not not really care too much about 'up-voting'.
You failed then to explain how someone who has no points can up-vote an argument. Secondly, you are another user who get's upset because half of your arguments fail. It takes someone else to corroborate my claims for you to discontinue and just accept that you were wrong. I constantly requests that they tune in on certain debates just to reiterate a disputation just so you can understand that you are wrong. Though most time you diverge from the subject just to complain about up-votes.
As for the alias, all addhlt would have to do is check the IP address of the email addresses associated with said 'alias'. It's a very simple process. My true aliases are 'JavaScript' and 'HarvardGrad' (and of course this user).
l say that clicking each user that logs on just to locate this illusory 'alias' sounds mighty desperate for someone who does not not really care too much about 'up-voting'.
I only clicked one user. The one that signed it immediately after you made a post.
You failed then to explain how someone who has no points can up-vote an argument.
You don't need points to upvote.
As for the alias, all addhlt would have to do is check the IP address of the email addresses associated with said 'alias'. It's a very simple process.
IP addresses of email addresses? Wtf are you talking about. The Psuedointellect is talking about something he doesn't understand again it seems.
ail. It takes someone else to corroborate my claims for you to discontinue and just accept that you were wrong. I constantly requests that they tune in on certain debates just to reiterate a disputation just so you can understand that you are wrong
I have no idea what you are talking about. Shall we chat about how Catalan is a pidgin language or how the concept of number iis subjective or how you speak fluent spanish? LOL
I only clicked one user. The one that signed it immediately after you made a post.
Hows could you possibly know this as you would have to keep refreshing the page until my post comes up then you would have to backspace and keep refreshing the page until you see my illusory 'second account' log in. Even then it would take some tome for me to log out and log in on another account so why would it be reasonable to believe that this happened immediately? Perhaps a bit of fabrication coupled with exaggeration?
IP addresses of email addresses? Wtf are you talking about. The Psuedointellect is talking about something he doesn't understand again it seems.
Hows could you possibly know this as you would have to keep refreshing the page until my post comes up then you would have to backspace and keep refreshing the page until you see my illusory 'second account' log in. Even then it would take some tome for me to log out and log in on another account so why would it be reasonable to believe that this happened immediately? Perhaps a bit of fabrication coupled with exaggeration?
It took me about 10 minutes. Was worth it though to catch you out.
I am afraid it is you who doesn't understand. How many times do I have to prove you wrong?
You complete and utter retard haha. How does he receive the IP of an email address when there is no email sent from the account. That is aside from the fact that most email service providers mask users IPs now (at least with gmail). Another thing to add to the list of stupid things Harvard says. I guess you won't reply to this like you don't when you are proven wrong. Or else you will start redefining things again.
Also my claim that Catalan was a sort of creole stemmed form it being closely related Castilian Spanish and Provençal, I will admit to being misled by my assumption, but it was a reasonable one nevertheless.
But whats reasonable about claiming murder has been proven to be objectively wrong (gevin an international consensus), and that numbers and letters are not abstract and therefore objective? Even when daver tried to explain to you otherwise?
Also my claim that Catalan was a sort of creole stemmed form it being closely related Castilian Spanish and Provençal, I will admit to being misled by my assumption, but it was a reasonable one nevertheless.
Mislead by your assumption? LOL. Wrong. Incorrect. But Mislead by your assumption. Lol. What bullshit. It is as reasonable as saying 2+2=5. Or saying that a website gets IP addresses from users emails LOL. And you hacked Tor you were telling me???
But whats reasonable about claiming murder has been proven to be objectively wrong (gevin an international consensus)
If you can't understand my arguments then what can I do?
numbers and letters are not abstract and therefore objective?
Yeah yeah. Live in your fantasy word you narcissistic freak. You meant number as a concept. That is in fact what you said. However you have convinced yourself that you were just saying that some languages use different symbols. Whatever. You're dull and stupid.
Mislead by your assumption LOL. Wrong. Incorrect. But Mislead by your assumption. Lol. What bullshit. It is as reasonable as saying 2+2=5
It was a warranted presumption given that Catalan's language closely related Castilian Spanish and Provençal... How on earth is this comparable to mathematical deduction?
You also claimed that speaking English and Spanish in the same sentence was not considered Spanglish (which the name itself, obviously, implies otherwise), therefore the act of me doing such a thing is still solid proof that I can't speak Spanish...
Or saying that a website gets IP addresses from users emails LOL.
There is a way to trace emails to an IP address.
And you hacked Tor you were telling me???
I never stated that, I claimed I traced an IP address of someone by traversing proxies. I knew this someone's IP-he was on his laptop next to me and we were seeing how vulnerable Tor was. As it seems it is easier to track someone using the Tor network if you essentially 'cheat' (foreknowing what you are searching for).
If you can't understand my arguments then what can I do?
There's no sense in understanding an argument that presupposes a moral (in this case 'murder') being objectively wrong. Not only is this patently fallible, it begs the question of objective morality-which is something you couldn't discern given that you substantiated your argument with "everybody agrees that murder is wrong, so therefore murder is objectively wrong," once it was said by me that this was expressly fallacious you reduced to ad hominems-another fallacy.
Essentially your entire argument was "murder is objectively wrong..." how "because there is a universal concession." The former being outrageously fallible and the latter being just plainly erroneous.
Live in your fantasy word you narcissistic freak. You meant number as a concept. That is in fact what you said. However you have convinced yourself that you were just saying that some languages use different symbols.
I asserted number is a concept, then, to better explain, I said it was analogous to the understanding that letters (such as "S") are symbols entirely conceptualized by man and isn't apart of physical reality. It was a very simple illustration that you found extremely difficult to ascertain.
Whatever. You're dull and stupid.
I do recall you saying that you were an English teacher-though I find it weird that you didn't know that syntax was apart of grammar? You prevaricate every time i bring this up or you invoke non-remembrance. Just to clarify, you noted that I erred with my syntax, I then said my dyslexia hinders on my grammar abilities-to which you said "HAHAHAH FUCKING IDIOT GRAMMAR HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SYNTAX." I then pulled up the meaning of grammar and you exercised your 5th amendment right....
There's no sense in understanding an argument that presupposes a moral (in this case 'murder') being objectively wrong. Not only is this patently fallible, it begs the question of objective morality-which is something you couldn't discern given that you substantiated your argument with "everybody agrees that murder is wrong, so therefore murder is objectively wrong," once it was said by me that this was expressly fallacious you reduced to ad hominems-another fallacy.
You still don't understand. Please give up and fuck off. You're clearly not interested in understanding the argument.
I asserted number is a concept, then, to better explain, I said it was analogous to the understanding that letters (such as "S") are symbols entirely conceptualized by man and isn't apart of physical reality. It was a very simple illustration that you found extremely difficult to ascertain.
Yawn. Fuck off okay? No one is following this debate so I can't be arsed humilating you digging up where you said that number was a subjective concept but you did.
I do recall you saying that you were an English teacher-though I find it weird that you didn't know that syntax was apart of grammar?
.... slap Stupid boy. Sit in the corner. No one cares.
Ah, so it is only about who else sees the debate rather than the debate itself? This predisposes you to make false arguments, as you always do.
I find it interesting that inferior individuals always resort to "fuck you," "no one cares," etc. This is a tacit admission of defeat. One of which I take humbly :)
Mislead by your assumption? LOL. Wrong. Incorrect. But Mislead by your assumption. Lol. What bullshit. It is as reasonable as saying 2+2=5
It was a warranted presumption given that Catalan's language closely related Castilian Spanish and Provençal... How on earth is this comparable to mathematical deduction?
Or saying that a website gets IP addresses from users emails LOL.
There is a way to trace emails to an IP address.
And you hacked Tor you were telling me???
I never stated that, I claimed I traced an IP address of someone by traversing proxies. I knew this someone's IP-he was on his laptop next to me and we were seeing how vulnerable Tor was. As it seems it is easier to track someone using the Tor network if you essentially 'cheat' (foreknowing what you are searching for).
As for the alias, all addhlt would have to do is check the IP address of the email addresses associated with said 'alias'. It's a very simple process. My true aliases are 'JavaScript' and 'HarvardGrad' (and of course this user).
Do these accounts even require email verification? If they do, you could just use one of several email providers that mask IP addresses. You could also use a proxy to log into CD.
If someone cared enough about inflating his internet persona on some random debating site, it would not take much effort. Although, it wouldn't do much since debates are generally judged by the message and not the messenger.
Although, it wouldn't do much since debates are generally judged by the message and not the messenger.
Precisely, which is why I wonder how anyone would come to such a conclusion that one is up-voting oneself (I understand the evidence you presented, but said evidence is rather inconsequential as it leads to nowhere but conjectures).
I am pretty sure I was the first one to point out that none of this counts as evidence. No need to repeat my point back to me.
In regards to the conclusion, the reasoning behind it relates to your choice of username.
PS: The consensus reached in this debate is not inconsequential. It proves that there is aberrant upvoting of your arguments, based on the observations of numerous long time users. We still cannot establish the cause for it without further evidence. Like I said, two likely scenarios are self-upvoting and devoted stalkers.
Precisely, which is why I wonder how anyone would come to such a conclusion that one is up-voting oneself (I understand the evidence you presented, but said evidence is rather inconsequential as it leads to nowhere but conjectures)
People care about how others judge their message or the message of their opponents (despite denial). This is why there are points in the first place. Since we know that people care about these things, we consider self up-voting petty as it misses the point that the message is what's really important. Furthermore, the perception that one is supported by others can make their position seem more substantial. This is why up-voting ones self would annoy people, even if they don't really care about the points themselves.
You are right that the evidence only leads to conjectures. The fact that we can't know is your strongest position, though unlikely to sway belief...Which must be really annoying for you.
It's not annoying at all, I simply want people to admit the real reason underlying their concerns for self-voting (which you have somewhat illuminated). To say, 'I don't care about up-votes but let me make an entire debate topic around one user of whom I will allege of self-voting,' seems like a fallacious contradiction.
Also, what about users who up-vote ones argument out of dislike for the opposer? Or users who up-vote ones argument just to make their position seem more substantial than it is (usu. because the opponent is disliked or has users wanting him to be wrong for once)? For example the users in this debate topic, they will just up-vote a disputation simply because it's issued to me; they don't actually know what the disputer is even referring to in half the disputes, isn't that equivalent in terms of pettiness to up-voting oneself? Furthermore they'll even up-vote an allegation towards me even while knowingly lacking any evidence of their claim (such as user atrag).
You and I both know that most of these users are appealing to:
~Probability: "well, he does have a big ego, so he probably is self-voting"
~Popularity: "since most people seem to think he is, I would then say that yes indeed harvard is self-voting"
~Post hoc ergo propter hoc: "because harvard is narcissistic, then he is self-voting"
~Wishful thinking: "harvard is receiving up-votes and I don't want anyone to view me as being inferior, therefore I will concur with the allegation in hopes of rendering it true"
and so on...
I am not encapsulated in my Operating System, so to let digitized words 'annoy' me would be a comical thought, though users who incessantly address issues of user-based voting, despite a host of substantial topics to debate, seem as though they are.
It's not annoying at all, I simply want people to admit the real reason underlying their concerns for self-voting (which you have somewhat illuminated). To say, 'I don't care about up-votes but let me make an entire debate topic around one user of whom I will allege of self-voting,' seems like a fallacious contradiction.
You are ignoring the most basic reason for asking questions, curiosity.
Notice the debate title is a question and not an accusation.
Also, what about users who up-vote ones argument out of dislike for the opposer? Or users who up-vote ones argument just to make their position seem more substantial than it is (usu. because the opponent is disliked or has users wanting him to be wrong for once)? For example the users in this debate topic, they will just up-vote a disputation simply because it's issued to me; they don't actually know what the disputer is even referring to in half the disputes, isn't that equivalent in terms of pettiness to up-voting oneself? Furthermore they'll even up-vote an allegation towards me even while knowingly lacking any evidence of their claim (such as user atrag).
I questioned the timing of the upvotes, not the actual upvotes themselves.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc: "because harvard is narcissistic, then he is self-voting"
That is not a post hoc fallacy.
~Popularity: "since most people seem to think he is, I would then say that yes indeed harvard is self-voting"
I already pointed out that popularity only proves that there is irregular upvoting of your arguments, not that you upvote them yourself.
~Wishful thinking: "harvard is receiving up-votes and I don't want anyone to view me as being inferior, therefore I will concur with the allegation in hopes of rendering it true"
This would be wishful thinking on your part as well. Instead of several unique perspectives accusing you, it would just be a few perspectives based on majority bandwagoning.
and so on...
and so on...
I am not encapsulated in my Operating System, so to let digitized words 'annoy' me would be a comical thought, though users who incessantly address issues of user-based voting, despite a host of substantial topics to debate, seem as though they are.
Like I said, this was the first debate to raise this point according to the search feature.
I guess it would seem incessant to someone who does not care about this topic but has responded to it numerous times.
For example the users in this debate topic, they will just up-vote a disputation simply because it's issued to me
Can't be known.
they don't actually know what the disputer is even referring to in half the disputes
Can't be known
they'll even up-vote an allegation towards me even while knowingly lacking any evidence of their claim
We've discussed the evidence; there's a lack of proof. Incidentally, do you have evidence or proof of this claim? I think it can't be known.
You and I both know that most of these users are appealing to:...
Know we don't :). I said your best argument was that we can't know, this applies here. Similarly, the fact that you can't know is unlikely to sway you from your position based on the real or perceived evidence that you presented. Nor perhaps should it, as I imagine some of it is right. This certainty is what your accusers feel. There really is no rebuttal beyond "nu-uh".
You know the outcome of this inquiry. Given so, why post such an inquiry in the first place?
---
even though all of them were shown to be in error
According to you flewk, and you are no authority. No matter how much you claim something is or isn't true, it doesn't make it a valid claim. And I'm told I have an inflated ego...
---
To answer a question that only I can answer: no, I do not 'up-vote' myself, for the 100th time.
---
I'll ask this again, even though you will not answer the question truthfully, why does an 'up-vote' seem to matter so much to you? It's just a little number on the side.
According to you flewk, and you are no authority. No matter how much you claim something is or isn't true, it doesn't make it a valid claim. And I'm told I have an inflated ego...
I did create this as a perspective debate. If you want to refute my claim, do it. I have asked you to do so several times. I am still waiting.
You know the outcome of this inquiry. Given so, why post such an inquiry in the first place?
Why would I know the outcome of this inquiry? We have only interacted a few times. I have no idea what kind of person you are as "Harvard", much less in real life.
For all I know, your stalker could be upvoting every one of your comments.
To answer a question that only I can answer: no, I do not 'up-vote' myself, for the 100th time.
This is the first time that I have mentioned this. I guess a lot of other people have accused you of this.
In addition, Andy can probably answer this.
I think TheEccentric might be able to answer this as well. I think he had a method of some sort by reviewing a user's points.
I'll ask this again, even though you will not answer the question truthfully, why does an 'up-vote' seem to matter so much to you? It's just a little number on the side.
The answer to this is simple. Curiosity.
Literally the reason for most questions.
PS: If you were up-voting yourself, I could ask you the same question.
I have suggested those who issue these accusations to ask addhlt to check in on this since it such a HUGE problem.
I think the real problem is you don't want anybody to agree with me as you believe your points are valid (since an up-vote implies an agreement). Not everyone is gullible to erroneous information posed in an confident fashion.
You answer is, as believed, telling the whole truth. People receive up-votes all the time (even when their wrong), so why then would you single me out as being suspicious of up-voting myself? +
Lastly I refuted your claim with a valid argument. Actually, your claims advanced my argument as you invoked a child's environment. You said that a child doesn't choose her environment which therefore invalidates my argument. This lets me know you have not the slightest clue of what is meant by environment (i suppose you just believe it as just being a child's home given that you only invoke parenthood, but this is not true. I would have to cite a whole psychology book on environmental stimuli and its effects on a child's IQ. I have studied (academically) this topic exhaustively, and it appears you haven't. I don't want to argue from authority so I just stopped altogether once you said "if there's plenty of evidence you wouldn't mind citing the sources," and, as stated previously, I would have to cite a whole book to meet your requests. You also wouldn't even accept citations from science articles claiming it was unreliable as it had a correction posted, which you and I both know that plenty of trustworthy sources such as science.com or psychology.com have erred on certain topics, but that doesn't make them invalid sources to refer to).
All I can say is teach yourself the full extent of the subject so we can have a more functional non-strenuous debate (though, when you do, you will likely not end up disagreeing with me as you start to understand my points, but hey who knows there is always room for disagreement).
I think the real problem is you don't want anybody to agree with me as you believe your points are valid (since an up-vote implies an agreement).
Funny how seldom anyone actually post in agreement with you but yet most of your argument get two upvotes.
Ifucking love your continual argument of "the book on the subject is just too big for me to citr here" how many times have you used that argument hahahahaha
I think the real problem is you don't want anybody to agree with me as you believe your points are valid (since an up-vote implies an agreement).
Actually, I could care less about the up-votes since those don't actually mean anything or even validate the argument. Agreement means nothing if the person up-voting does not even try to dispute my evidence.
The only reason I brought it up was because we were engaged in an active debate. I noticed that one of your responses had 3 points even though it showed "4 mins ago" below it. I had just been notified of your response by the system, but somehow two other people who would have no system notification knew about it before me. This made it seem like you have stalkers or you up-vote yourself.
Not everyone is gullible to erroneous information posed in an confident fashion.
You still have not shown how my information is in error. I have asked you to do so several times.
1) I cited a scientific study to support my claim.
2) You cited a review paper in order to dispute my claim.
3) I pointed out that your review paper actually supported my claim by quoting directly from it.
4) Instead of addressing those quotes and admitting your lack of comprehension, you continued to assert that you were right without providing proof.
5) You have repeated step 4 quite a few times now regardless of how many times I ask you to provide proof or reasoning. This entire post is just another repeat of step 4.
Lastly I refuted your claim with a valid argument. Actually, your claims advanced my argument as you invoked a child's environment. You said that a child doesn't choose her environment which therefore invalidates my argument. This lets me know you have not the slightest clue of what is meant by environment (i suppose you just believe it as just being a child's home given that you only invoke parenthood, but this is not true. I would have to cite a whole psychology book on environmental stimuli and its effects on a child's IQ.
This is why I said you did not read the study I cited. It was about this exact claim of environment. It studied the socioeconomic status of the parents and its effect on the child's environment and the child's intelligence variance. Socioeconomic status affects far more than "homes" and "parenthood". Seriously, read it.
I have studied (academically) this topic exhaustively, and it appears you haven't. I don't want to argue from authority so I just stopped altogether once you said "if there's plenty of evidence you wouldn't mind citing the sources," and, as stated previously, I would have to cite a whole book to meet your requests.
It is pretty obvious you have not studied this academically or exhaustively. You did not even understand the one source you did cite. A review paper is not that technical. I have no idea how an "academic" like you would have been confused by it.
Don't need a whole book. Just explain the contents of the review paper you already cited to support your argument.
You also wouldn't even accept citations from science articles claiming it was unreliable as it had a correction posted, which you and I both know that plenty of trustworthy sources such as science.com or psychology.com have erred on certain topics, but that doesn't make them invalid sources to refer to).
I never said it was unreliable or not credible (which you also accused me of earlier). Quote the part of my statement you have interpreted as such.
My actual point was that after your mistake with the scientific review paper, you chose to cite a general article instead. It seemed like you were scared you would misinterpret an academic paper again.
By the way, I did read the article, and it did not even support your point.
All I can say is teach yourself the full extent of the subject so we can have a more functional non-strenuous debate (though, when you do, you will likely not end up disagreeing with me as you start to understand my points, but hey who knows there is always room for disagreement).
No matter how much academic experience you claim to have, it will still not change the fact that you could not even understand a basic review paper.
flewk.... I understood the paper in its entirety, apparently so did you, one paper does not illustrate the full scope of the topic (and you believing this would lead someone to question whether or not you are serious...).
My deductive argument was valid and sound, you didn't break down the premises to prove otherwise. The point was each facet of the subject in question pointed could be reduced to genetics. You claimed environment was the exception to which I showed how even that could be reduced to genetic factors, which the paper explained to an extent how that is the case.
I suggested you read a few books as each explanation requires an explanation (sort of like a explaining to a creationist how evolution is a fact, if the don't know the scientific intricacies then they will hold their views).
I am disciplined in psychology and I understand all of what I have claimed, my problem was that I assumed that you understood as well.
Your point on socioeconomic factors bearing on a child's intelligence is in contradiction to what you originally said "a child cannot choose it's home in which to live," so you see how the claim "Socioeconomic status affects far more than "homes" would not be parallel to the claim aforementioned.
Doubtful. If you understood the paper, then you would not have cited it. Not only did it not support your claim, it actually refuted it.
one paper does not illustrate the full scope of the topic (and you believing this would lead someone to question whether or not you are serious...).
Pointing out your limited knowledge regarding the topic does not suggest that one paper covers the entire scope of the topic. All it did was illuminate your apparent inadequacies.
If you want to try and explain why you are an expert on this topic even though you could not even understand a review paper you cited, be my guest.
My deductive argument was valid and sound, you didn't break down the premises to prove otherwise. The point was each facet of the subject in question pointed could be reduced to genetics. You claimed environment was the exception to which I showed how even that could be reduced to genetic factors, which the paper explained to an extent how that is the case.
Looks like you still fail to understand the foundations of the nature vs nurture debate.
You should look up the term "gene expression\".
I am disciplined in psychology and I understand all of what I have claimed, my problem was that I assumed that you understood as well.
Your discipline in psychology has helped you greatly in the debate so far...
Your point on socioeconomic factors bearing on a child's intelligence is in contradiction to what you originally said "a child cannot choose it's home in which to live," so you see how the claim "Socioeconomic status affects far more than "homes" would not be parallel to the claim aforementioned.
I can't seem to find: "a child cannot choose..." in my waterfall.
The only thing I could find was a statement by you: "Then you issued red herring saying, well the child doesn't choose his/her environment. Though this may be true, this line of reasoning would entail a slippery slope. Perhaps i should've said, "assuming the child was not born in a Nazi concentration camp"."
Also, I am not even sure how those statements contradict one another.
You should just stop now. The more you type, the more apparent your ineptitude.
The question should be posed to yourself. Why do you like upvotes so much? You log in to 2 of your other accounts just to have a 3 next to your name. Why do you do it if it doesn't mean anything?
I have personally accused Harvard of this a couple of times in the past. It was when I noticed a few profiles that were either him or his allies logging in around the same time as him but never posting while he simultaneously gained votes on comments that were pretty far out.
Harvard said that, as a result of my accusations, Andy addressed the issue with him (actually I think he accused me of taking it directly to Andy though I didn't). After this, I let it drop even though I still have occasional suspicions.
Atrag has been fairly consistent in his accusations of self-voting, but they go around about a lot of things.
I'm sure it is frustrating for Harvard to be accused of self-voting when there is no real way to verify one way or the other. What I find interesting that different people have come to suspect him for similar reasons.
He usually responds with an accusation of pettiness for being concerned with the score. This appears to a preemptive tu quoque accusation stemming from the implications that self-voting would entail. While score should not be important to most people, it seems reasonable that it would be important to a person with a narcissistic personality, even if reason tells him it's petty.
This appears to a preemptive tu quoque accusation stemming from the implications that self-voting would entail.
How does inquiring why up-votes matter invoke informal fallacies? It's a valid question (that never gets any valid responses). Inversely it is you who advanced a fallacy by asserting that I was up-voting myself even with no substantial evidence.
While score should not be important to most people, it seems reasonable that it would be important to a person with a narcissistic personality, even if reason tells him it's petty.
This is a sort of bulverism (appealing to identity) to say that because I have a psychological condition, then that condition would confirm your claim, one of which is derived from you advancing an argumentum ex silentio fallacy.
What I find interesting that different people have come to suspect him for similar reasons.
Whoa now, don't start appealing to people as everyone else appears to be doing, because these false accusations were not though of separately, one person accused me of such actions, someone saw that accusation, and then anytime I received an up-vote it was me up-voting myself. So the 'appeal to people' would actually be an appeal from authority.
How does inquiring why up-votes matter invoke informal fallacies?
It's the implication that caring about these small things would be petty thus directing attention back at your accusers for similar pettiness you are being accused of. I would assert that one can take interest in, and even be slightly miffed by, a person up-voting themselves while not caring all that much about the points as such. No one likes dishonesty in others, whether its real, imagined, petty, or important.
to say that because I have a psychological condition, then that condition would confirm your claim
It's not a fallacy to think it reasonable that a psychopath may be dangerous. Similarly, it's not unreasonable to think a narcissist may attempt to look better than he is.
Whoa now, don't start appealing to people as everyone else appears to be doing, because these false accusations were not though of separately
Some of them were thought of separately. Some of the reasons were similar.
I would assert that one can take interest in, and even be slightly miffed by, a person up-voting themselves while not caring all that much about the points as such.
But this presupposes that one knew I was 'up-voting' myself. I find it hard to believe that one simply sees an up-vote and comes to the conclusion that one must be up-voting themselves... My assumption that the reason one believes that I am truly up-voting myself is because it was alleged previously is not far-fetched as for the reasons aforementioned.
It's not a fallacy to think it reasonable that a psychopath may be dangerous.
It most certainly is as you may have no evidence to come to such thought. Being a psychopath does not entail dangerousness or even suggests it for the reasons I believe you are implying. Perhaps you should've said: "leaving my child around someone with pedophilia would be risky".
Furthermore, me having NPD and me up-voting myself has no correlation. Your implied cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy leads me to suggests that maybe you don't understand the full scope of NPD.
Some of them were thought of separately. Some of the reasons were similar.
There's a problem with your phraseology, it's implying that you know such thoughts were thought of separately, which I am sure to push this false narrative and advance their attempt of character assassination they will claim this is true; but again i ask, who sees an up-vote and comes to the conclusion that it must be that person 'up-voting' theirself?
But this presupposes that one knew I was 'up-voting' myself. I find it hard to believe that one simply sees an up-vote and comes to the conclusion that one must be up-voting themselves
One must only believe you were up-voting yourself. A person having an up-vote is not sufficient to spark suspicion (other factors that have been presented go ignored by you). The suspicion in you was caused by different factors for me than for flewk, which is how I assumed that at least some of these were thought of separately (which addresses your other response).
It most certainly is as you may have no evidence to come to such thought
No evidence that a psychopath may be dangerous? You say the weirdest shit. High psychopath scores correlates highly with tendencies to violence. This is because the fundamental characteristic, lack of remorse (conscience), means the psychopath lacks the normal disincentive against negative human impulses, such as violence. It is only external disincentives that keep the psychopath in line (though they remain impulsive) and these commonly cannot be relied on. So yes, a psychopath may be dangerous.
me having NPD and me up-voting myself has no correlation
Whoa now, don't start appealing to people as everyone else appears to be doing, because these false accusations were not though of separately, one person accused me of such actions, someone saw that accusation, and then anytime I received an up-vote it was me up-voting myself. So the 'appeal to people' would actually be an appeal from authority.
Another possibility is that people observed the same effects from your (stalker's) actions and arrived at the same conclusion. Just because people arrive at the same conclusion does not mean there was collusion or bandwagoning.
For example, I actually used the search function to find a previous debate for this topic. I could not find any so I made my own. For anyone new to the site, there was nothing to suggest that anyone else thought you were upvoting yourself.
You do realize that this is the only sensible argument for me up-voting myself right? Everyone else is just hopping on the bandwagon and saying that I am up-voting myself just because it's the internet...
Let me just quote myself here: "Well, that obviously does not constitute as proof... nor do the numerous accusations."
I wouldn't say that this is any more "sensible" than any of the other claims.
It seems several users who have interacted with you noticed aberrant up-voting. Many of these users have been on this site for years. Their observations are probably more accurate than mine.
I am curious if anyone else on this site has been accused as such.
PS: If you really aren't up-voting yourself, then you have some devoted stalkers.
You do realize that you're assuming that all pf my arguments aren't worthy of up-votes? To say I have devoted stalkers just because I have up-votes renders all of what I said about your irrational reasons for believing that I am self-voting valid. Thank you for finally admitting to this.
Why would the assumption fall on all of your arguments? You should probably look up "aberrant".
The stalker conclusion was based on the fact that you received two up-votes within minutes of posting deep within a comment tree. That generally requires some dedicated followers, who can be classified as stalkers.
