• gregorum@lemm.eeEnglish
          2·
          6 months ago

          There’s that amnesia again! You asked and I answered this question an hour ago:

          You already produced that evidence when you commented…every time you comment. And I point it out every time. Just like the ad hominem attacks. But you seem to have serious memory problems.

          It’s irrational to blame others for things you, yourself, do and say.

          Now 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”.

          • SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world
            11·
            6 months ago

            You have to respond to the request with evidence first.

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

            • 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”.

              • SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world
                11·
                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@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]