/lit/ - Literature

>>16374286
>I thought this problem was endemic to reddit but it seems to have spread this /lit/.
Oof. Okay. Hold up big man. Do you have a PEER REVIEWED source to substantiate that claim? It's okay - I'll wait.

Is that your picture sweaty?

>>16374286
Do you have any evidence at all of this happening?

>>16374286
Why are you debating people?

>>16374286
You going on Destiny's stream?

What I'm wondering is why do so many people write sweetie as sweaty. Is it a meme or something? or is it a similar situation to people writing lose as loose?

>>16374329
go back

>>16374329
The people who say "folks" and "y'all" abused "sweetie" so much that people reversed it on them with "sweaty" until they stopped. This all happened on twitter years ago.

>>16374337
Sorry, I don't use Twitter.

>>16374342
I demanded no apology from you anon.

>>16374286
try picrel
of course personal abuse and scathing insults are also a satisfactory way of dealing with such faggotry

>>16374286
Classical logic was only recently codified. There are other formal systems (equally valid) that one can use, there is no reason why it should be the modus operandi for discussions. Intuitionistic logic is more useful in certain areas and there are very convincing arguments as to why double negation and LEM should not be considered valid.

>>16374286
>gets btfo
>blames autists

Actually redditors argue like this.

you ask them what they think about the subject and then let them talk

>>16374354
Sounds pretty............logical

>>16374354
Of course. Formal logic in debates has only limited use e.g. for resolving linguistic ambiguities. Ultimately the kind of topics that you can debate (non-science) can't really be argued from a strictly logical framework. Many rationalists try to use things like Bayesianism to solve ethical problems and all you get is technical formulations of very basic ideas (like utilitarianism).

I'm not saying logic bad, but most of people that tout LOGIC and FACTS are simply framing their own opinions in logical-sounding language.

>>16374379
Hey that's a pretty wise idea. No joke, I should just start asking questions instead of trying to defend myself.

Got any other tips?

>>16374390
>simply framing their own opinions in logical-sounding languag
This is all debates. It's either that or it's some rhetorical chimp-show where they bully the opponent. Debates that aren't exchanges of written material across long time periods are irrelevant social spasms of our primate species

>>16374396
>Got any other tips?
coconut oil is a much better lubricant for anal sex

>>16374398
The thing is that culturally, we have mostly accepted that appeal to emotion is manipulative and not a way in which anyone ought to argue. The problem is that we've replaced with the fetishism of logic. Now people can elevate their bullshit position to a respectable one by rewriting it in formal modal logic or whatever.

>>16374405
Ha I actually knew this one! Honestly, pretty good tip.

>>16374390
My post agrees with you. Many people assume that mindlessly applying formal classical logic to their arguments automatically makes them
universally valid which cannot be true as the choice of framework is arbitrary at best. Some might argue that "informal logic" is what one should use in discussions but the entire concept of informal logic is so arbitrary and undefined that it is rendered completely useless as a concept and idea. People are not at all careful with their usage of logic in their arguments.

>>16374286
>t. thinks debating is just slinging insults

>>16374414
Can neo-classical logic rescue debates from total chaos?

>>16374286
rhetoric was a mistake
only dialectics

debating is talmudic nonsense, ad hom is the only tactic that matters, who cares what your opponent knows or thinks about philosophy if they're overweight, ugly or transgender

Violence is the only answer, and has been for thousands of years.

>>16374441
Ironically, only an internet dweller would think this. Anyone who "does shit" for a living respects people who can bring objective truth to bear on a problem.

>>16374441
Sure thing faggot

>>16374441
This, ad hominem isn't a real fallacy. As if all arguments are just free floating in the ether or some neutral marketplace instead of being the conditioned product of real bodies. You don't listen to a drunk on the street and character matters in court and everywhere else.

>>16374456
Your "character" (skinnyfat poster) has no bearing on the veracity of e.g. the pythagorean theorem. You speak it, it's true, you enact its conditions, it works. Doesnt matter if you're 350lbs inbred and blind

>>16374441
>debating is talmudic nonsense, ad hom is the only tactic that matters, who cares what your opponent knows or thinks about philosophy if they're overweight, ugly or transgender
alll this is true

>>16374456
>ad hominem isn't a real fallacy
Wew

>>16374420
No. Logic is not a tool of debate as there is no one universal logic. Although there are some interesting ideas surrounding implication and its omnipresence in reality and many formal systems. One could argue that classical logic or indeed any bivalent logic is not confirming or useful in reality and that multi-valued logic is the only way forward.

>>16374465
Not him, but what is annoying is when genuine insults are taken as fallacious arguments. Sometimes when I'm arguing, aside from presenting my argument in a rigorous form (or even not intending to argue at all), I'd like to express my contempt towards the other person. This contempt is not part of an argument, so taking it as a fallacy is either dishonest or mistaken.

>>16374483
I agree with that and also think if the subject is obviously related to personal characteristics then it becomes relevant, like defending Stoicism emotionally or advocating bullshit diets while 350lbs. Ad hominems make sense for some subjects, just not all of them

>>16374456
OK FAGGET

>>16374286
Pointing out fallacies in an argument is the opposite of rhetoric.

>>16374327
Destinity is a dishonest rhetoritician. He couldn't even defeat a 90 IQ black man in an argument and absolutely was raped by the christcuck. Destiny is peak midwit and always uses straw mans.

>>16374465
You seem to have missed out on the last 50 years of philosophy. Even analytics like Rorty admit that the truth - even of pure mathematics - is not some transhistorical absolute but always conditioned by the people and their zeitgeist.

>>16374482
>its omnipresence in reality
a spook is not reality

>>16374511
Philosophy was solved 2500 years ago.

>>16374286
>got a source for that?
Depending on what you're talking about this is perfectly valid, the rest is accurate though.

>>16374513
Is presence omnipresent?
If it is does 'everywhere' exist?
If everywhere exists then thinness is everywhere and omnipresent.
Every thing is a one.
Therefore oneness is omnipresent.
The One is omnipresent.

>>16374511
Good example of empty rhetoric
>"you're behind the curve" - means nothing
>even authorities like my guy - means nothing
>"truth is not transhistorical" - a point never substantiated, just referred to some authority
the pythagorean theorem holds bucko, just as much in your room where you post now as it did 20,000 years ago before written language, and before there was a mind to grasp it

>>16374286
Do you have a single fact to back that up?

>>16374342
Good. Keep not using it. Nothing good there lies.

>>16374524
Any language you could express the theorem in is contingent, therefore its relationship to the world is contingent as well. There is no such thing as necessity, no matter how overwhelming your feelings to the contrary are, they remain that: feelings.

>>16374511
In your dreams, retard.

>>16374449
This. People of value are valuable and only basement dwelling 4channers would think in those terms.

>>16374541
False.

You shouldn't bother debating anyone on the internet. Especially when it comes to politics and philosophy, since everyone on 4chan is spinless on those topics.

>>16374329
I do it because I saw someone else doing it and I found it funny

>>16374286
>That's a logical fallacy
Valid if it indeed is one.
>Got a source for that?
Invalid. Argument from incredulity 99% of the time.
>Ad hominem
If used in response to an insult, yes soi and midwit. A true ad hominem is peak rhetoric and is used by most people when they start losing the argument. They can't refute the idea at face value so they attack the person behind it.
>I don't see a citation
Invalid and midwit. See second response.
>appeal to nature
Valid when natural good is said just because. However, when explicitly admitting a natural model for the argument and ascertaining it, it is midwit to invoke this fallacy.
>Straw man
One of reddit's favorite techniques. Here is a straw man example 'this is just anti-science at the same level of anti vaxxers and climate deniers'. Straw man arguments are dishonest rhetoric.
>not an argument
4chan speak
>begging the question
Invoked incorrectly by most.
>facts don't care about your feelings
Example of rhetoric. The arguments presupposed around a data source are assumed to be dogmatically true when in reality they are hypotheses that don't align to reality. According to Ben, its impossible to be poor single white man with a high school diploma.
>do you have any studies to prove your claim
Invalid, see second answer again.


In summary, the soi is guilty of all the aforementioned fallacies and instead only is apt to use
>muh source
Just as bad is their argument cop out
>muh burden of proof.

>>16374449
Eh your average normie really only cares about feeling good and having what they already believe reinforced by someone else. They don't really view someone bringing objective truth to the table as valuable and is usually viewed as threatening.

>>16374541
On the contrary, it will be you relying on "feelings" and "notions" and "intuitions" to counter a display of the truth of the pythagorean theorem anywhere in your environment. Cope.
>>16374544
Incoherent.

>>16374318
Lmao, I like how you just refuted the Op, this is what the argument would deter to if you did not have logic or any conception of a fallacy. But that said there are of course those that bring up wild fallacies or often-said terms that might not even refute something, but often enough have no relation to the agreed upon framework. To the topic.

>>16374570
You're thinking in social terms, where objective truth is rarely the issue. The guy standing under the crane wants the winch to be correctly secured and the cable to be adequately load-bearing.

>>16374573
Hume already dispelled the notion that being accustomed to something speaks to its necessity.

>>16374465
>the pythagorean theorem
This is what I mean. We're not talking about mathematics - the topics people debate involve society, relationships, and emotion - but all your arguments are premised on the idea that debate is ultimately about absolute truth.

>>16374573
>Incoherent
Back you go

>>16374588
Not relevant to quoted post.
>>16374592
I'm using mathematics to point out that ad hominems are not the be-all end-all of argument. They will simply get you nowhere in that field.
>>16374594
Random insult from the rolodex.

>>16374601
>Random insult
It's like a living soijack

>>16374377
/thread.

>>16374441
yes you're right my Jewish friend
the goyim--cattle that they are--have no need for rational discussion skills, they should subsist on ironic detachment and divisive ad hominem so they may never reach conclusions to promote any meaningful change

>>16374618
honestly anon, you type like a non-white

>>16374541
No.
All necessary truth is relative to a language, but any language with the resources to express this theorem will always necessarily reveal it as true. This has nothing to do will feelings, it is simply the way symbolic language works.
Thats also why 2 plus 2 can never equal 5

>>16374637
>Thats also why 2 plus 2 can never equal 5
This is subtle racism at this point.

>>16374541

Woah everything is subjective there is no objective truth so cool

>>16374286
Lots of people believe they are intellectuals or scientists because they adopt formal thinking, I find it quite distressing that their worldview is based off a string of empty "facts" externally connected together because testing samples were adequate, double bind studies were done, a wikipedia section indicating there's a scientific consensus on the subject, etc... they're also the kind of people that ask for 2 pages long "factual" ressources (or youtube videos, or twitter threads) to explain a complex physical mechanism that takes years to understand.
I know I shouldn't feel mad since after all they're just irrelevant strangers and it's all ego but sometimes the unwarranted smugness just gets to you, and then you find the same kind of attitude in higher stratas of society who should know better than that.

>>16374655
This is blatant and explicit retarded shithole-eating at this point

>>16374666
To be honest this kind of behaviour is more common in the dilettante midwit that argues on internet forums, edits Wikipedia articles, and learns politics from YouTubers like Sargon of Akkad, than it is in the intelligentsia and academia.

>>16374585
thinking in social terms is how your average normie thinks

>>16374656
Not him but yes, all axiomatic systems are arbitrary by definition.
>>16374637
>imagine being a dirty naturalist

>>16374286
Debate is pointless. Just call them a nigger and be on with your day.

>X is clearly due to Y, educate yourself
>what? who cares how high the correlation is with Z!? CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION!!
Don't debate these """people""".

>>16374286
Reject modern "science" and formal logic, embrace Naturphilosophie and dialectical logic

>>16374506
How did he lose those debates?

>>16374286
>appeal to nature
How is that even a fallacy? Who in their right mind would say that appealing to nature is a fallacy, as if humans are mere clay to be molded by technocrats, social engineers and the techno industrial system? Appeal to nature is a very valid argument as it shows the limits on how malleable human nature is

>>16374791
Based

>>16374746
>/pol/tard
>doesn't use logic
Like pottery

>>16374318
OP irrevocably BTFO

>>16374568
Why not argue using sources?>>16374763
>reject science
t. sent this from my iPhone
>>16374791
It's when natural is conflated with good. Tribalism and rape are natural activities.

>>16374791
It is a fallacy because stating that a thing is good just because it's natural doesn't really make sense. For example stating that herbs are better than traditional medicine just because they are natural is wrong because it has been proven many times that they aren't effective at all and just a placebo.

>>16374286
Unironically Lesswrong. It tears right into this kind of 'overlogic' that isn't actually logical.

>>16374746
>posts uncle tom quote

>>16374863
LMAO lesswrong (and SSC) are the epitome of this kind of shit

Provide a source.

The worst thing about these people is that they become totally content with a study involve 6 people because it is peer-reviewed and double blind.

>>16374329
you sweat summer child

>>16374883
Ah a black man is not acting like a thug, must be an uncle tom!
also
>posts ad hominem

>why won’t people let me spout demonstrable bullshit waaaaaaaaaah

>>16375413
>Here's a placebo controlled study with 12 participants
>Oh wow science, that must be true!

>>16374511
Desu how can mathematics possibly not be "transhistoric", as you put it? I've recently read Quine's article Two Dogmas of Empiricism and I just can't wrap my head around the conclusion that EVERY proposition can be rejected, including the supposed truths of logic and mathematics. Doesn't this in effect mean that Quine claims 1+1 isn't necessarily 2? That would be so fucking stupid though I just refuse to believe that a statement so moronic could possibly come from the pen of a supposedly renowned philosopher.

>>16375438
Think you misunderstood the paper

>>16375446
What exactly did i misunderstand? Quine explicitly writes that there is no such thing as the analytic-synthetic distinction and that every single proposition could, in principle, be rejected, even the truths of logic and mathematics.

>>16375431
You probably can’t even find one participant, you fucking homo

>>16375463
In principle, yes - the point is the rejection of the concept of analyticity. A proposition can be rejected, but you still have to provide a reason for rejecting it. He is not saying that there is no objective truth or anything like that.

Also consider the context. He is arguing against logical positivism, especially the verification principle. He argues against the idea that you can check a single statement in isolation. This is false because verifying a statement requires assuming a million other statements.

>>16374286

>>16374396
>just start asking questions instead of trying to defend myself
Impossible to pull off before the redditoid starts doing this himself.

>>16374286
the funny thing is outside data and statistics are fallacious in an argument especially since they make an appeal to scale and quantity
so really the only thing you have to worry about is not using bad logic
or you could just only use animal analogies like Zhuang Tzu

>>16375511
Yeah, I understand that. But if the claim that 1+1 is not necessarily 2 is a direct consequence of one's philisophical stance, the stance immediately becomes untenable, if not outright ridiculous.

>>16374850
>saying x is better than y is wrong even though "better" is a totally nebulous and subjective descriptor

>>16374849
>Tribalism and rape
Unironically good because they are natural.

>>16374286
>arguing based on studies and references
Something that people have to understand is that no one believes what they do, fundamentally, because they read a scientific study telling them that x is correct. The entirety of philosophical opinions are formed by an individual's moral compass. Bob the Catholic deacon down the street doesn't fundamentally believe that abortion is wrong because he read a scientific study about embryonic development, he believes its wrong because his religion says so. Science and the related studies are ONLY EVER supplementary to a pre-existing moral compass used to bolster one's own stance and dismissed if they are contrary to one's own stance.
The only truly philosophical debates are between moral codes, people who debate "philosophy" with science are Reddit incarnate.

>>16375625
No he is not saying that the truth value is a result of a philosophical position. I don't know where the hell you think he says that. The argument is that analytic statements like 'all triangles have three sides' are true IF we take 'triangle' to mean 'has three sides'. But all that means then is 'all three-sided things have three sides'. That's fine, the problem is that once you start using other terms you introduce problems, many of which are linguistic. For example, if we inspect 'bachelor' in 'all bachelors are unmarried men', can we be certain that all the identity property hold? Tbh most of this is very abstruse and nothing to do with things like 2 + 2 =5 phenomenon

>>16375651
>christian abortion meme
Entire post discarded.

>>16374286
I do use not an argument a lot, but thats because very often people simply refuse to honestly give an argument.

>>16375668
>nooo you used an example i dont like

>>16375682
Might as well be bitching about muslims being mad at mohammed cartoons like its 2006.

>>16375689
Keep crying

>>16374506
Please link the video with a christian

>>16375700
Imagine being so riddled with dementia and brain rot, that all you know is memetic nonsense. Entire class of people that are fucking insectoids. Like a changeling imitating a human child in folklore.

>>16375728
>grr you say things online so i am so much better than you UGH... if only everyone was as intelligent as me
Keep. Crying.

>>16374286
Don't bring up "facts" that you haven't verified yourself?

>>16374791
This. To deny nature is to deny any possible basis of truth or reality. Even metaphysics relies on the physical realm for some indication of what lies beyond. Just try to make any coherent reasoning about anything without the natural, you literally can't.

EVERYTHING should rely on an "appeal to nature" in that everything should in some way appeal to observable reality.

>>16375735
Yes. I am better than you. The only one crying here is you.

>>16374286
Learn symbolic logic and then proceed to take giant shits on incorrect reasoning.

>>16375761
>Learn symbolic logic and then proceed to take giant shits on incorrect reasoning.
This. You don't need an autistic list of fallacies if you just understand the basics of proper reasoning.

>>16374286
Which professor hurt you?

>>16375794
>who hurt you
See >>16374377 and please leave.

>>16374568
I'm not reading that

>>16375801
>thinks a wojak image with a bunch of words he doesn't like on it means he won le epic online argument
So which one was it?

>>16374286
>Any books on how to debate people like this?
>
>I thought this problem was endemic to reddit but it seems to have spread this /lit/. How do we deal with it?
>
>To clarify, these people don't actually have anything to say on the subject at hand, and put all their effort into pointing out lack of references and irrelevant informal fallacies (like shouting "ad hominem!" when someone makes a joke at someone else's expense).

>>16375812
>thinks he deserves to be taken seriously even though everthing he says and does is a meme

>>16374318
/thread

>>16374746
>muh empirical evidence
>WHAT NOOOO, BUT MY DATA TELLS ME ICE CREAM IS DIRECTLY CORRELATED TO RISE IN CRIME DURING SUMMER

This is why humanities fags should take rigorous statistic courses and not just hand wavy bullshit.

>>16374456
ok fuckwad
the reason you don't listen to a drunk on the street is because their arguments are retarded, not because they are a drunk (drunk is simply the culmination of their ungoodness): their retarded beliefs precedes their poor life decisions as their beliefs form the bases for decision making. if a drunk, through chance, offered wisdom, then this wisdom is valid, even if unlikely. don't take the present consequences of poor logic/rhetoric and then extend it to say that a person suffering from these consequences is entirely incapable of logic or rhetoric, even by accident
RETARDED RETARD FUCK

>>16374489
>>16374483
valid modifications to the post I made just above
>>16375851

>>16375761
This. The only way to beat autism is with autism.

>ITT: humanity fags mocking people for asking sources to back up claims.

This is why people take us, STEM graduates, more seriously.

>>16375666
"All triangles have three sides" is a true analytic statement IF we take triangle to mean "has three sides", but somehow taking "bachelor" to mean an "unmarried man" is a mystery of synonymity?

1+1=2 is an analytic proposition. If you reject the distinction between analytic and synthetic, every proposition becomes liable to rejection, at least in principle, as Quine claims in the text. In other words, the law of excluded middle doesn't necessarily hold true (Quine's example) and 1+1 doesn't have to be 2.

>>16374566
same
memetic spread in the literal sense, not "meme number 981349 in the knowyourmeme database"

>>16375633
No mate, better isn't a neboulus word. I don't get where you are going to.

>>16374396
When you do talk, give as many details as possible. If the person who you are talking with starts to focus on the details, you already won the argument

>>16375862
>This is why people take us, STEM graduates, more seriously.
Going to need a source for that, batman.

>>16375886
It is. You bring up the idea that traditional medicine is "better" than herbal medicine because it is more effective. I think that herbal medicine is better because it is less effective and so controls the population growth. It's that easy. "Better" doesn't mean anything. Might as well be saying "what I like".

>>16374318
/thread

appeal to nature is absolutely retarded though and is the main argument modern mind poison uses. no, we arent born good, and plenty of natural urges we have are immoral and destructive.

>>16374322
this
>>16374337
its been around before twitter nufag

>>16375913
You are basically giving a whole different interpretation of the world better which is completely idiotic. Of course if you are discussing which medicine is better you choose the one who cures the most people. What kind of retarded backwards logic is to think that the medicine who works less is actually better?

>>16375846
lol

>>16376020
If the outcome is what you prefer, then it your eyes it's better. That's all that "better" is. If you wanted to argue which medicine was "more effective at curing disease", then you could. But arguing about what's "better" is what retards do.

>>16375617
You would have to prove it is a fallacious appeal to scale and quantity. Not all appeals are fallacious, don't you know.

>>16374329
Good point. I thought he somehow knew anon was perspiring

>>16376047
More effective at curing the disease literally is the point of medicine.

>>16376067
Lol you crazy

>>16376047
you're correct, but it should be clear from the context what he meant
being this picky about some anon's side example is a bit over the top
oh wait I forgot what thread we were in

>>16376067
Doesn't matter. The argument was worded as "herbs are better than traditional medicine". Better at what? Who knows? Because it wasn't ever mentioned in the first place. Word it as "traditional medicine is more effective at curing disease than herbal remedies".

>>16376090
Because I hear morons argue about "x is better y is better" shit all the time and it means fucking nothing.

>>16376100
I know. Choose your battles is all I'm saying.

>>16375812
>thinks "which professor hurt you?" is a valid peer-reviewed published studied

>>16375868
>but somehow taking "bachelor" to mean an "unmarried man" is a mystery of synonymity?
No, the problem is present in both examples. For example, "triangle" is one word, "has three sides" is three words. So take the sentence "triangle has 8 letters" - you can't replace "triangle" with "has three sides" so they are not interchangeable. This example is trivial and you can wave it off as silly but there are actual problems with the entire idea of an analytic truth.

>>16374779
1. Incapable of answering even the black guys questions and replies with snark, strawmans, and whatabouters. The sheer incredulity and moral indignation is peak midwit.

2. A midwit dealing with some mentally ill low tier high IQ. He's making destiny look like an emotional child. It's like the fucking retard prepared by hopping up on adderall and then reading philosophy. B-but muh epistemology. The man he was speaking to was mentally ill and had lapses at times when anger overcame him which allowed the midwit to get a bit of snark in and call it a victory for himself but argumentatively speaking he was blown the fuck out of orbit the first 10 minutes. Just sounds like some retarded kid who looked up words and concepts he doesn't understand and just regurgitates them.

>>16376162
>Incapable of answering even the black guys questions and replies *WITHOUT* snark, strawmans, and whatabouters

>>16376100
Nothing but the best am I right

>>16374441
the most dangerously based post on 4chan

Just dont

I don't understand what you're struggling with
Simply ask why they think your arguement corresponds to the fallacy and why you think that renders your arguement incorrect
If they can't, they just reveal that they can't actually respond to your arguements
If they can clarify, consider what they have to say and respond
Also, if you make a claim about something factual that would need evidence ie
>Lesbians have the fewest sexual partners of all sexualities
Then asking for a study seems fair
"Fallacies" are short-hands that clarify wider arguements, if they are just dangling words, then they're weak, if they are backed by something, they can help round out what you're saying

>>16376223
(:

>>16374286
I dont get it, what's wrong with calling out fallacies or asking for source?

you crack their faggot head open with a rock. thats the only argument a MUH LOGIC AND REASON cuck deserves

Yes, just reply with, "Oof, yikes, cringe," etc. Why take them seriously? They don't take you seriously.

>>16376799
Nothing but you're missing the entire context and manner in which people do it. You seem to be feigning ignorance here.

>>16376799
a fallacy or two doesn't invalidate an argument, sometimes slopes are slippery and sometimes someone's character is inextricable from the viability of what arguments they express. As far as sources go, there isn't enough time or university bribe money in the universe to run studies to empirically prove everything. People don't live their lives with complete knowledge of what will happen, they some obligation to learn as much as they can but that's just faith with accoutrement. All in all these things can be tools for pseuds to smokescreen and argue in bad faith with. Which really you solve with
>>163767223

>>16374377
Just shut up and listen is the most annoying thing someone can say while arguing. Makes me boil and wish to crunch their nanobrain

>>16375851
I bet you look really gay

>>16374677
If anything, I find it's most common among midwits who are in academia or have recently graduated. A smug sense of superiority backed up by the supposed "rationality" of their beliefs, and the fact that they are often repeating verbatim their professor's opinions.

>>16374318
/thread

>What do you mean your personal observations in a small bumfuck city of 30,000 people have effected your beliefs???!?!?! Don't you know that's anecdotal evidence.
>Here, this is an ACADEMIC study conducted on a sample size n=3,000... you should read what the experts have to say and educate yourself
Many such cases...

>>16374441
This is the position you take when you've been completely backed into a corner but you're too conceited to admit you were wrong

>>16374286
Jut get familiar with those terms and understand what's being said, basically just train your critical thinking
>That's a logical fallacy
Socratic method: explain to me why it's a logical fallacy?
>Got source for that?
If I say "we can see the sun" the source is look up out of your window. If I make more severe claims then yes, I need something backing that up
>Ad hominem
If I say "2+2= 4 Fuck you" it doesn't mean my adittion is wrong. If is just say "Fuck you" then yeah I'm not saying really anything
>I don't see a citation
Same answer for Got source for that?
>Appeal to nature
If I say "raw honey is better than processed honey" or "wild game meat is good for you" in both cases I'm appealing to nature but you need to analyze if those arguments are correct or incorrect
>Strawman
Socratic method: why it's a strawman?
>Not an argument
Socratic method: explain to me why it's not an argument?
>Begging the question
Socratic method: Why am I begging the question?
>Facts don't care about your feelings
This doesn't really mean much though, If I say "I feel God exists" You are pretty much saying "I believe in God even though there's no physical evidence" is just a semantic problem
>Do you have any studies to prove your claim
Same answer for Got source for that?

>>16374791
It's a fallacy because what people consider natural in regards to human behavior is often subjective. Just saying something is natural isn't an argument

How do you respond to the ‘appeal to emotion’ fallacy? That’s the most egregious one, for sure.

>>16374286
I don't understand why anyone would bother by bugmen such as these. They don't care to find truth. They only care to find gotchas to post on twitter. Its like thinking the people who respond to trump tweets with delete your account have anything worth listening to.

>>16377147
What are the root of the emotions that are influencing the persons string of thought? For example a racist is clearly coming from a place of negative emotions and insecurity, where as someone on the left is coming from a desire to help and serve the needy. What motivates you? Love or hatred? Vanity or authenticity?

>>16374286
Why would you even condescend to debate people like that? There's no hope for them.

>>16374286
Literally just post this picture at them

>>16377212
Ad hominem

If you can't even argue your points like a human being the only option left is to either institutionalize or kill you. We can't just post soijaks at each other until one of us gives up and conforms to the other persons point of view, at this point you're basically just saying "I don't care if I'm right or wrong, I'm right because I said so, and you're wrong because i said so". Once reason is abandoned, there's no other option than to resort to violence.

>>16377147
Do you appeal to emotions though? just get your facts straight and you are rarely going to hear this

>>16377269
Every great rhetorician appeals to emotion.

>>16377280
If by great rhetorician you mean American politicians then yeah sure.

>>16377289
I take it you haven't read Nietzsche.

>>16377289
Cicero constantly does it in his speeches

>>16374286
>How do we deal with it?
Just try not to be fallacious and always source your claims

>>16374286
nobody intelligent and intellectually honest takes continental philosophy seriously. facts don't care about your feelings.

>>16374286
>>16374300
>>16374377
>>16374354
>>16374441
>>16374447
>>16374508
>>16374525
>>16374560
>>16374568
>>16374791
>>16377123
>>16377109
>>16377132
https://youtu.be/cGZkCPo7tC0

>>16374483
those people are marxists and they're underage.

>>16377324
Objective reality is non dualistic, facts not only don't care about feelings but facts don't care about anything and only exist to contain language.

>>16374592
faggot fucking leftist, facts exist and they don't care about your feelings. in the real world we can actually look at the data and evaluate the probability that initiatives such as "abolish the police" would actually improve things or not. kill yourself.

>>16377343
Did you really need to post a fucking YouTube video made for children to explain to us what a strawman is? We know. It doesn't change anything. OP pic isn't a strawman, it's an insult. Get over it.

>>16377301
I think you just need to understand the nature of what is being said. E.g. If someone claims that the quote “That which does not kill us makes us stronger” just appeal to emotion just make clear it is a philosophical aphorism and it doesn't have to be taken in a literal way.

>>16377324
Continental philosophy doesn't even argue, that's for analytictards like you

Continental philosophy interprets, explicates and comments

>>16377395
Thanks for dragging the conversation down to "American campus identity politics" level. Fuck off ya bore.

>>16377413
go and feel up your ass on topics too complicated and "nuanced" for icky and oppressive facts to be relevant faggot leftist basedboy. fuck you.

>>16377429
You remind me of myself when I was 16. I'm actually conservative but your brand of right-wing is just pure cringe. Calm down, honestly, don't type like this you make us all look bad.

>>16377395
>abolish the police, we have intricate systems of assimilation, re-education, state dependence, goal-oriented psychoanalysis, and collective guilt starting from childhood that will make the physical imposition of force redundant!
I would unironically prefer Stalinism to this shit.

>>16377478
you're the crypto leftist pseud faggot trying to weasel your way into arguments consisting entirely of emotion and smugly quoting from continental philosophers, completely divorced from facts and rationality.

>>16377429
She's got a point though, most studies are working with a sample size smaller or (at best) at par with people's personal life experiences.

>>16377524
I really hope you're baiting me, but at the same time you sound like those Ben Shapiro wannabes who think accusing you of being a 'liberal' is a win for them. I beg you friend, don't argue like this if you want to be respected.

>>16377533
That just means the research can't be trusted, it doesn't mean we should listen to anecdotes.

>>16377396
https://youtu.be/IVFK8sVdJNg

>>16377543
Is it an anecdote when I say "I've noticed black people are more violent"? Of course not, an anecdote sounds something like this "I started eating bananas and they cured my depression".

>>16377543
>That just means the research can't be trusted, it doesn't mean we should listen to anecdotes.
No, it means that you have a precarious understanding of the actual mathematics behind statistics. Social Studies research really lacks the statistical tools to be much more than formalized anecdotes, and there isn't any getting around this point.

>>16377567
Did you even read my post?

>>16377396
/lit/ is an adult child board

>>16374286
If someone has nothing to say on the subject at hand, and all they bring to the table is critique of substantiation or use of logical fallacies, then there is literally no imaginable reason to waste your time engaging with them. Especially not in a debate format.
Don't reply to them. It's that simple.

>>16377533
Do you have a source for that?

I like ripping through flawed arguments by listing off all the logical fallacies they exhibit. I'm not wrong for doing so, but I am being disingenuous. That isn't a proper debate. A proper debate requires time to prepare a solid base of research. But that takes a lot of work and more often than not I don't have the energy to spare for such a thing.

But I still get aggrieved by flawed arguments so I derisively point out how they're wrong. Anything more and it's a job.

>>16377395
>>16377429
I think you're both right. The truth weaves a tricky path somewhere through the middle regarding police oversight.

>>16375891
Gay retard post alert.
The correct thing to do is the actually the opposite. Give as little details as possible, and shave your argument down to its most concise form.
You've "won" when the other person starts extracting details that weren't present in your post.

>>16374286
The trick is to not be an uneducated moron spouting ridiculous, unfounded nonsense.

>>16374286
I think I get what you mean. A certain type of college educated person who never learned how to think, but did learn how to parrot these "academic hygiene" phrases and customs, like asking for sources, appealing to "the data" etc. This is a mind which, unable to analyze or put forward actual arguments, can only nitpick and stifle those that do by throwing all of these caltrops and smoke screens and obstacles up to impede the person with a point to make.
It's not that sources are wrong, it's just that it is not an end to itself. If sources were all that mattered nothing new would ever be said, intellectual progress would go in a circle fruitlessly because it would be restricted to what has come before.

>>16374791
*Ahem*

>>16377618
exactly...

>>16377571
Yes, and I'm responding to your point by pointing out that most personal anecdotes draw from a sample size which is not much smaller than that used in any sort of statistical analysis. Obviously there is a formalized methodology in studies that isn't present in anecdotes, but as a heuristical method listening to people's life experiences and drawing from your own observations and experiences is not a bad way to understand society.

>>16377618
Having biased cherry picked data is itself a problem because you're directing the dialectic towards your own agenda and premises to begin with, even if they're bullshit

>>16377578
Yes, actually.

>>16377638

>>16377731
Anecdotes are not worth anything. If all you have are anecdotes than you simply have to reserve judgment.

>>16377801
All formalized studies come from an initial spark of intuition.

>>16374286
>>>/b/

>>16374447
Pretty based opinion for a phoneposter.

>>16377801
Yeah, people's so called life experiences are lies or hallucinations, can't trust anyone unless there's a study behind them.

>>16378011
Everyone's personal experiences are subjective, his point is that anecdotes are unreliable. Subjective experiences aren't worthless, but they have no use political discussions

>>16374568
>The Townshend Acts passed by Parliament in 1767 and imposing duties on various products imported into the British colonies had raised such a storm of colonial protest and noncompliance that they were repealed in 1770, saving the duty on tea, which was retained by Parliament to demonstrate its presumed right to raise such colonial revenue without colonial approval. The merchants of Boston circumvented the act by continuing to receive tea smuggled in by Dutch traders. In 1773 Parliament passed a Tea Act designed to aid the financially troubled East India Company by granting it (1) a monopoly on all tea exported to the colonies, (2) an exemption on the export tax, and (3) a “drawback” (refund) on duties owed on certain surplus quantities of tea in its possession. The tea sent to the colonies was to be carried only in East India Company ships and sold only through its own agents, bypassing the independent colonial shippers and merchants. The company thus could sell the tea at a less-than-usual price in either America or Britain; it could undersell anyone else. The perception of monopoly drove the normally conservative colonial merchants into an alliance with radicals led by Samuel Adams and his Sons of Liberty.
https://www.britannica.com/event/Boston-Tea-Party

>>16378011
You can trust that something happened to that person, that their life is like that, you can't extrapolate to all of society based on it.

>>16374286
the best way to deal with a debater is to physically mog them and act without regarding them at all

>>16377618
Alright, I'll bite.

I've studied a little data analysis and the first thing you learn is how flawed, incomplete, and "dirty" most datasets are. Collecting good data requires ongoing dedication that a spurious google search rarely delivers.

And are you actually arguing against evidence? Conjectures are great and all, but don't you want to ground those hypotheses in reality at some point?

>>16378056

>>16378042
This isn't legitimate at all, but hearing enough anecdotes is a type of rough dataset. Good enough for a journalist looking for a lead.

>>16374286
Just ask them explain what it means every time they do it and they just look autistic.
>blah blah blah
no that's a naturallistic fallacy
>what does that mean?
blah blah blah
>ok i think i get it, how does that apply to this?
blah blah blah
>what about if x y z
oh well blah blah blah blah
ok but how does tnat work
blah blah blah.
Everyone has now lost interest.

>>16377524
>postmodernism
Ask how how I know a 15 year old /pol/cel made this.

>>16374286
>Any books on how to debate people like this?
Use their own weapons against them: "you're moving the goalposts", "this is a red herring/strawman", "you do realize that 'incel' is an ad hominem", "[citation needed]", "I need more trustworthy sources", etc...
Works best if you have a neutral reputation with the other person. If you have a bad reputation, don't bother with facts and logic, just resort to emotional manipulation and bait them into saying some controversial shit.

>>16378502
This. If in doubt just do what Nietzsche did and piss them off.

>>16374286
This image is such a cope for your fucking retard brain. Go kill yourself you dumb worthless faggot

>>16378056
>t.

>>16374286
It's not worth it. People who are autistic will always be ahead of you on this stuff even if they are wrong. You will never spend enough time on it to hold your own. Better to just walk away.

>>16374327
Destiny isn't this guy. He doesn't mind arguing against fallacies and he takes people studies as truth.

>>16378640
PBUH.

>>16377289
Do yourself a favor and read Aristotle's "Rhetoric", anon. It seems to me like you have no idea what rhetoric even is.

>>16374286
>How do we stop people from using correct dialectical processes
t. 38 IQ OP

>>16374318
SPBP /thread

>>16377610
Gay retard here,
You have to be completely transparent to effectively communicate any sort of point efficiently, but I do still agree that keeping things concise is cool

>>16377618
There's not just people with points to make and people to whom points should be made at.

Why do people get so ass-blasted about asking for sources? I understand the frustration with someone who simply copy pastes a gamut of web links to shit that they probably did not even read, and I understand that trying to appeal to cherry picked sources in internet 'arguments' that are REALLY about tribal in group virtue signalling an autistic mental masturbation is futile.

But in a legitimate to attempt to share knowledge and engage in thoughtful discussion over the internet (and that's what we're all after here on lit, right?), then asking for some supplemental materials or resources is commendable

>>16378700
Best post ITT

>>16378790
It's all just a shitpost anon. People here make fun of that because it's a popular thing on reddit to backup your claim with a trusted source and since we are on 4chan we're destined to do exactly the opposite of what reddit does.

>>16374286

""sources""

(((sources)))

Medical and social science has an extremely severe replication crisis, to the point that much of the empirical data which forms the basis of the knowledge in these fields are totally erroneous, thus the knowledge itself has shaky foundations. Ideological bullshit

>>16374441
trannies seething at this post

How do you counter the solipsist retreat?

>>16374441
Absolutely correct. One can extrapolate a great deal of information from a mere glance as to the mental health and intellectual competency of that person being perceived. Those bearing dysgenic qualities will have little of value to contribute and ought not to be taken seriously. Few are exceptions to this rule, like Kant, but at least he was white.

>>16380687
idk dude, I am going to have to suspend judgement on this until you post full body + face nudes for the rest of us to asses the quality of your position on.

>>16374286
Someone pointed out that your weird /pol/ beliefs are irrational and now you’re coming here to complain about it.

>>16378790
You just proved the point. You don't care about sources or what other people have to say. You care about saying your opinion and having others head it. Maybe try reading the other posts in this thread to see what the problem is. I mean why would someone ignore everyone else and post something that's already been said a dozen times?

>>16381045
there's such a thing as posting physiognomy - it's quite easy to tell if someone is ugly or non-white by looking at how and what they write

>>16378835
Anon, don't be too scared now b-but... h-how do you know the replication crisis exists?
O-oh no.... oh no you might have to show me some sources. Oh shit don't tell me it was actually science that showed the methodological flaws in these areas and is striving to correct it.

OH NO BROS

>>16378790
Half the people here don't mean anything they say when they post things, and would readily escape to "haha I was just playing dumb" if they ever got intellectually cornered in a real life conversation. The other half of people saying this kind of shit are just really that dumb.

>>16381359
So now what people write does matter? Seems like you are trying to have it both ways, which if I were to engage in an analysis of "posting-physiognomy" I would have to classify as being extremely Jewish.

>>16376992
fag

>>16374286
>Any books on how to debate people like this?
Strive to have the facts and science on your side i.e. become a leftist/socialist.

die kunst, recht zu behalten by schopenhauer
/thread

>>16377478
>>16377524
Ever notice how all leftists are pedophiles?
It's why I love saying to them, "Ok groomer".

>>16374441
absolutely based, all judgements of the value of a statement can be made simply by a quick visual analysis of the character of he who states. The rare exception is that sometimes jews look like aryans but in any case you should always fucking know if you are arguing with a jew before engaging

>>16378790
Its annoying, because the person asking for a source usually doesnt do it in good faith.

The bad faith being, attempts to stall the debate, refusal to engage in debate or simply blocking the possibility of having a debate.

For example, I had a discussion about nofap and the person asked for sources, after giving links to websites and a few book suggestions, the person rejected all of them because they where no academic.

The end result is I think, that the person can not be confinced by genuine or new information, so the sharing of sources would be pointless.

tldr someone who asks for sources, refuses to accept new information on an equal basis.

>>16374398
>Debates that aren't exchanges of written material across long time periods are irrelevant social spasms of our primate species

>>16378196
>And are you actually arguing against evidence? Conjectures are great and all, but don't you want to ground those hypotheses in reality at some point?
You absolutely do. But that's not what these sort of debaters are capable of. They make these appeals to data and to evidence, but data and evidence is nothing without the proper interpretation . Unless you can concretely prove the data contradicts the claim, there's no point bringing it up. Sort of like you said, data alone and without context is just noise. What really matters is HOW that data was generated, the statistical methodologies employed, not the statistics themselves.

>>16375984
both me you fag

Rhetoric is the art of speaking to a crowd with a mind to induce one of several responses in them. It can also be applied to writing which addresses a large number of people; the essential form is that there may be multiple positions, but they interact principally with an audience, rather than with each other. Dialectic, or dialogue, is the art of speaking one person to another in order convince the other of a particular idea which is contradicted. Dialectic has been confused by Hegel's use of the term to describe a seemingly universal but mostly oversimplified tendency of cultural trends in history, which appears like a dialogue between two abstract positions.

>>16374377
desu I see half of this shit on 4chan a good bit these days

>>16374405
I don't know if using oil as lube is such a great idea.