one of my favourite arguing tactics

[Deleted member 43881]

i like to mention flaws in something about the recipient and I overestimate it to the point where its realistically possible or easily mistakable as much as possible but to the point where you would want to correct that that flaw isn't as bad as it is but for a flaw that's pretty bad so they admit and prove a flaw to make them vulnerable and nervous so its harder to logically argue

 

[Imretarded?]

i like to mention flaws in something about the recipient and I overestimate it to the point where its realistically possible or easily mistakable as much as possible but to the point where you would want to correct that that flaw isn't as bad as it is but for a flaw that's pretty bad so they admit and prove a flaw to make them vulnerable and nervous so its harder to logically argue

I like to provide scientific journals to support my claim and contradict my opponent's claim.

 

[Deleted member 28183]

Anyone who doesn't have a sub-60 IQ will just think that you are autistic tbh, this sounds like some shit you read in those "Dark psychology" books

 

[Deleted member 25198]

dnrd babbles

 

[Deleted member 73284]

i like to mention flaws in something about the recipient and I overestimate it to the point where its realistically possible or easily mistakable as much as possible but to the point where you would want to correct that that flaw isn't as bad as it is but for a flaw that's pretty bad so they admit and prove a flaw to make them vulnerable and nervous so its harder to logically argue

i like to call them racial slurs until i get banned or they leave

 

[Deleted member 43881]

I like to provide scientific journals to support my claim and contradict my opponent's claim.

yea but that's standard, most people don't think or know how to lower the other persons ability

my goal in an argument is to maximise my benefit I don't care if I'm right or wrong in most context bc most of the time finding the truth isn't necessary; it gives me value to be seen as the better character per se if im right or wrong

 

[Imretarded?]

yea but that's standard, most people don't think or know how to lower the other persons cognitive ability

my goal in an argument is to maximise my benefit I don't care if I'm right or wrong in most context bc most of the time finding the truth isn't necessary; it gives me value to be seen as the better character per se if im right or wrong

Strange. I instantly change my beliefs if they put forward a convincing enough argument.

I want them to be as rational as possible.

Maybe it's because I'm a scientist at heart.

 

[Imretarded?]

i like to call them racial slurs until i get banned or they leave

Nah ideal is to be as plain and rational as possible so the other person starts getting angry and insults you.

While you're there just running numbers to strengthen your case

 

[Ultimate Subhuman™]

i like to mention flaws in something about the recipient

 

[Deleted member 73284]

Nah ideal is to be as plain and rational as possible so the other person starts getting angry and insults you.

While you're there just running numbers to strengthen your case

 

[Imretarded?]

View attachment 3013563

 

[Deleted member 43881]

View attachment 3013562

Nah ideal is to be as plain and rational as possible so the other person starts getting angry and insults you.

While you're there just running numbers to strengthen your case

ad hominems are as rational as an argument as any other b/c by the fruits you judge not by the argument itself, because a sophist can construct a argument to make an argument seem as correct when there's a hidden value to it which is imperceivable or hardly perceivable (which i know because i often use sophist arguments and it works)

 

[Deleted member 43881]

Nah ideal is to be as plain and rational as possible so the other person starts getting angry and insults you.

While you're there just running numbers to strengthen your case

but your missing a tool that you concede to your recipient, which will make you lose often

 

[Ultimate Subhuman™]

ad hominems are as rational as an argument as any other b/c by the fruits you judge not by the argument itself, because a sophist can construct a argument to make an argument seem as correct when there's a hidden value to it which is imperceivable or hardly perceivable (which i know because i often use sophist arguments and it works)

This is cope lol

 

[Deleted member 43881]

This is cope lol

this is an ad hominem in itself LOL

 

[Ultimate Subhuman™]

this is an ad hominem in itself LOL

see what I did there?

 

[Imretarded?]

ad hominems are as rational as an argument as any other b/c by the fruits you judge not by the argument itself, because a sophist can construct a argument to make an argument seem as correct when there's a hidden value to it which is imperceivable or hardly perceivable (which i know because i often use sophist arguments and it works)

It's rational if you just want to humiliate someone. Also i hate to lie, what am I winning when i bullshit my way into an intellectual victory, it's hollow.

This reminds me of the stereotype that Germans are too direct and truthful. When a British or French man would say his fat wife looks beautiful, the German would say she looks like a fat crackwhore. I can not do it, it doesn't help me or my opponent.

but your missing a tool that you concede to your recipient, which will make you lose often

Lose what? Im only losing if I refuse to accept that i may be wrong. Knowledge is power.

 

[Imretarded?]

This is cope lol

this is an ad hominem in itself LOL

Well, calling something 'cope' is just dismissing something. I don't see how it's an attack on one's character.

 

[alurmo]

i like to mention flaws in something about the recipient and I overestimate it to the point where its realistically possible or easily mistakable as much as possible but to the point where you would want to correct that that flaw isn't as bad as it is but for a flaw that's pretty bad so they admit and prove a flaw to make them vulnerable and nervous so its harder to logically argue

 

[Imretarded?]

View attachment 3013581

mirin steelmanning him.

 

[Imretarded?]

View attachment 3013581

 

[Juandigomigo22]

i like to mention flaws in something about the recipient and I overestimate it to the point where its realistically possible or easily mistakable as much as possible but to the point where you would want to correct that that flaw isn't as bad as it is but for a flaw that's pretty bad so they admit and prove a flaw to make them vulnerable and nervous so its harder to logically argue

You are indian

 

[Deleted member 43881]

It's rational if you just want to humiliate someone.

this is what i say, ad hominems are has rational as any other tool in debate

Lose what? Im only losing if I refuse to accept that i may be wrong. Knowledge is power.

knowledge is worthless on its own, if i was arguing for a position of power for example, it would be beneficial for me to use all methods

this debate was held 2423 years ago, it ended in saying that theres not enough reason to prove anything and all rational thinking is moot

 

[Imretarded?]

this is what i say, ad hominems are has rational as any other tool in debate

knowledge is worthless on its own, if i was arguing for a position of power for example, it would be beneficial for me to use all methods

this debate was held 2423 years ago, it ended in saying that theres not enough reason to prove anything and all rational thinking is moot

Well anything can be rational. Doesn't mean it's a worthwhile tool to use. What matters is the utility it holds.

If I decided to use every trick in the book to convince someone that the earth is hollow and filled with 8 feet tall nordics, I may get a laugh out of it but I'm not furthering my own understanding of the world, certainly not helping that person. I'm just talking shit for the sake of talking shit.

Indeed where is the utility of arguing for metaphysical nihilism? that is easy, every argument begins with axioms you have to assume. Even at the most fundamental level, you have to simply state that one apple and one more apple is two apples.

I can deny what i see from my eyes and ears and say 'we can never know anything exists', no one fucking believes that. If you hire a pack of HIV positive men to gangrape that supposed metaphysical nihilist, they will be scared for life and may attempt legal action. 'it didn't happen bro, it's just your unreliable senses, you have to assume you got raped bro'. there is no utility here, so is it really rational?

 

[Deleted member 43881]

Well anything can be rational. Doesn't mean it's a worthwhile tool to use. What matters is the utility it holds.

If I decided to use every trick in the book to convince someone that the earth is hollow and filled with 8 feet tall nordics, I may get a laugh out of it but I'm not furthering my own understanding of the world, certainly not helping that person. I'm just talking shit for the sake of talking shit.

Indeed where is the utility of arguing for metaphysical nihilism? that is easy, every argument begins with axioms you have to assume. Even at the most fundamental level, you have to simply state that one apple and one more apple is two apples.

I can deny what i see from my eyes and ears and say 'we can never know anything exists', no one fucking believes that. If you hire a pack of HIV positive men to gangrape that supposed metaphysical nihilist, they will be scared for life and may attempt legal action. 'it didn't happen bro, it's just your unreliable senses, you have to assume you got raped bro'. there is no utility here, so is it really rational?

this is my point, ad hominems and my method are completely justified by utility in a lot of cases

 

[Imretarded?]

this is my point, ad hominems and my method are completely justified by utility in a lot of cases

Just doesn't serve my interests. If i tried that shit when writing one of my papers on biology, I'd get shot in the head by one of my four eyed colleagues.

'think i didn't catch that appeal to emotion in the methods section? you have to die now'

 

[Deleted member 74849]

i like to mention flaws in something about the recipient and I overestimate it to the point where its realistically possible or easily mistakable as much as possible but to the point where you would want to correct that that flaw isn't as bad as it is but for a flaw that's pretty bad so they admit and prove a flaw to make them vulnerable and nervous so its harder to logically argue

Useless, useful with normies

 

[Deleted member 74849]

I like to provide scientific journals to support my claim and contradict my opponent's claim.

Beware because rationality is inferior to intuition. I don't know how much you can benefit from it sometimes

 

[Deleted member 43881]

Anyone who doesn't have a sub-60 IQ will just think that you are autistic tbh, this sounds like some shit you read in those "Dark psychology" books

ur using the thing im trying to describe

 

[Imretarded?]

Beware because rationality is inferior to intuition. I don't know how much you can benefit from it sometimes

instincts? There is a time and place for that, for example you instantly understand not to fuck with a snake, however you are not able to just instantly understand economics or physics, you're going to be wrong.

 

[Deleted member 74849]

instincts? There is a time and place for that, for example you instantly understand not to fuck with a snake, however you are not able to just instantly understand economics or physics, you're going to be wrong.

No it is different. And I didn't expect a different answer from you. Rationality is the servant of intuition. This is not an attack; it is a suggestion. Seriously.

 

[Imretarded?]

No it is different. And I didn't expect a different answer from you. Rationality is the servant of intuition. This is not an attack; it is a suggestion. Seriously.

What do you mean then? Intuition is the ability to just instantly understand something. How could you trust a gut feeling with something you have no prior experience with?

if you take a quiz, just using intuition will get you a fat fucking zero.

 

[Deleted member 74849]

What do you mean then? Intuition is the ability to just instantly understand something. How could you trust a gut feeling with something you have no prior experience with?

if you take a quiz, just using intuition will get you a fat fucking zero.

It's clear that it is not always usable.

 

[Deleted member 74849]

What do you mean then? Intuition is the ability to just instantly understand something. How could you trust a gut feeling with something you have no prior experience with?

if you take a quiz, just using intuition will get you a fat fucking zero.

However, I don't insist so much you won't change your mind. Who am I to change your mind anyway.

 

[Imretarded?]

It's clear that it is not always usable.

However, I don't insist so much you won't change your mind. Who am I to change your mind anyway.

Therefore, there is a time and place for that kind of stuff. I find it unreasonable to say rationality can be inferior, that implies it makes rationality redundant.

 

[Deleted member 52405]

Knowledge is power.

That's why I need to collect more.

 

[Deleted member 74849]

Therefore, there is a time and place for that kind of stuff. I find it unreasonable to say rationality can be inferior, that implies it makes rationality redundant.

It is indeed inferior

 

[Deleted member 43881]

What do you mean then? Intuition is the ability to just instantly understand something. How could you trust a gut feeling with something you have no prior experience with?

if you take a quiz, just using intuition will get you a fat fucking zero.

what he means im pretty sure is that a socratic argument is more sound than a sophistic argument practically

with a socratic arguement you argue based off conceptions made in technical irrationality, but serves for utility

with a sophistic arguement you argue based off pure rationality without basing off of irrational preconsceptions

 

[Imretarded?]

It is indeed inferior

I guess that's how it is. You came to this conclusion via intuition, me asking for a step by step justification is doomed to fail since there was never one to begin with.

 

[Imretarded?]

what he means im pretty sure is that a socratic argument is more sound than a sophistic argument practically

with a socratic arguement you argue based off conceptions made in technical irrationality, but serves for utility

with a sophistic arguement you argue based off pure rationality without basing off of irrational preconsceptions

Haha who the fuck uses logic without pre assumed axioms? I've heard people claim to do this before. There is nothing to argue if you don't assume shit before hand.

 

[Deleted member 52405]

i like to mention flaws in something about the recipient and I overestimate it to the point where its realistically possible or easily mistakable as much as possible but to the point where you would want to correct that that flaw isn't as bad as it is but for a flaw that's pretty bad so they admit and prove a flaw to make them vulnerable and nervous so its harder to logically argue

What’s the point of arguing when our ancestors were gigachads before agricultural revolution?

 

[Deleted member 74849]

Haha who the fuck uses logic without pre assumed axioms? I've heard people claim to do this before. There is nothing to argue if you don't assume shit before hand.

What is the characteristic that distinguishes a genius from a non-genius in your opinion?

 

[Imretarded?]

What is the characteristic that distinguishes a genius from a non-genius in your opinion?

I don't think there is any one trait you can point at.

Also 'genius' has multiple meanings. It could mean a true expert in a field of study. It could also mean just someone who learns quickly.

Regardless. it takes a strong short term and long term memory.

 

[Deleted member 43881]

Haha who the fuck uses logic without pre assumed axioms?

sophists

There is nothing to argue if you don't assume shit before hand.

What is the characteristic that distinguishes a genius from a non-genius in your opinion?

people dont have the same axioms, this means that all rationality is not the same for all because what is a = c for one and a = b for another

ethnocultural groups have axioms that are grouped as so so if you mix these you have a very easily controlled population because then you only have to be able to convince one mind as a complex system

requirements for a genius changes based on enviroment

rationality is not a global property in the meaning of grouping but local and only serves as a tool to enact your will and you are apart of people with similar axioms, social media is inherently is globalist

 

[Imretarded?]

sophists


people dont have the same axioms, this means that all rationality is not the same for all because what is a = c for one and a = b for another

ethnocultural groups have axioms that are grouped as so so if you mix these you have a very easily controlled population because then you only have to be able to convince one mind as a complex system

requirements for a genius changes based on enviroment

rationality is not a global property in the meaning of grouping but local and only serves as a tool to enact your will and you are apart of people with similar axioms, social media is inherently is globalist

Thats why you don't let in alien cultural elements, at least if we both value european civil society.

 

[Deleted member 74849]

sophists


people dont have the same axioms, this means that all rationality is not the same for all because what is a = c for one and a = b for another

ethnocultural groups have axioms that are grouped as so so if you mix these you have a very easily controlled population because then you only have to be able to convince one mind as a complex system

requirements for a genius changes based on enviroment

rationality is not a global property in the meaning of grouping but local and only serves as a tool to enact your will and you are apart of people with similar axioms, social media is inherently is globalist

Exactly. Geniuses are geniuses because of their personal interpretation of reality

 

[Deleted member 74849]

@noobs
@Imretarded?

However, I appreciated your insights, even if you don't give a shit. Every once in a while not shitposting is helpful.

 

[Imretarded?]

@noobs
@Imretarded?

However, I appreciated your insights, even if you don't give a shit. Every once in a while not shitposting is helpful.

 

[lowinhibcel]

i like to mention flaws in something about the recipient and I overestimate it to the point where its realistically possible or easily mistakable as much as possible but to the point where you would want to correct that that flaw isn't as bad as it is but for a flaw that's pretty bad so they admit and prove a flaw to make them vulnerable and nervous so its harder to logically argue

Ever heard of punctuation retard?

 

[Deleted member 74849]