/lit/ - Literature

>>17991794
>if you can't produce evidence, it didn't happen
You keep saying that I said this, can you point to what I said specifically that gives this implication? My argument was that the conclusions did not match the supplied evidence, not that the lack of evidence disproves the conclusion. You're completely twisting my words to assert something functionally incompatible with my whole argument.
>if you can produce evidence, I will twist and ask for REAL evidence
Also need help understanding this one too. I don't know where you're getting this from at all. I already stated that I took all of the supplied evidence as factual. There could logically be additional physical facts which could lead us to the conclusion that subversion exists and even more physical facts which could lead us to the conclusion that this subversion was effective. None of this twists the evidence or prevents additional evidence from leading to any conclusions proving or disproving subversion.
>State subversion still exists.
The evidence required to disprove this conclusion would be insurmountable :^)
>Irrespective of how much evidence you think is necessary to prove so.
Obviously. Again, never made the argument that world events were determined by our own perceptions of them. I was trying to argue the opposite of this, actually.
>placing everything you just produced in the realm of "plausible but not conclusive". By that logic we cannot reason about anything. The fuck.
I see why you'd get to this conclusion if I were actually arguing that conclusions were impossible or that the lack of evidence for a conclusion disproves it. Never said anything like that, though, so I have no idea how you got here.
>Especially considering the nature of subversion is plausible deniability. Which is what you are playing off. Your words may seem impenetrable, but they are paper thin, state shill.
In the United States, criminal law functions under a standard of verdicts beyond reasonable doubts (at least that is the goal). This is an explicit trade-off, in that certain people or organizations will be capable of avoiding convictions (at least for a certain amount of time) for the sake of protecting those who could reasonably be perceived as innocent. My point in conveying this is to point out that law economizes on the inherent scarcity of knowledge in determining what is true or untrue in a given court case to produce a predefined beneficial social result (the imprisonment of criminals and protection for non-criminals). A society which holds lower standards for what is defined as "knowledge" in such cases as criminal verdicts is one where the whims of a few (or in court cases sometimes just one, the judge) can be imposed as a substitution for what would otherwise be insufficient standards for determining the fate of a defendant. The fact that guilty verdicts require heavy knowledge costs does not mean we are less efficient for it, and it definitely doesn't mean we cannot reason.

Are there any books that defend Jingoism?

Pls rec a book to help me improve my writing/papers for uni

l

>>15475802
Simply send him this pic every single time he does it

>>15396409
>They just heard about Marx being influenced by Hegel so now it's Hegel who they criticize to sound knowledgeable
Impressie

Based. People who need sources are incapable of thinking for themselves

>>15141833
Atheist is a retardation, and teenagers are often retarded

>>15095203

>>14926512
I cannot imagine being so naive as to think that social analysis needs quantitative statistics.

>>14912373

It's not really lit but it gives me a reliable chortle

>>14861183

>>14851482

>>14819831

>>14799157

>>14705896
This is you.