/lit/ - Literature

>>4472348
>argumentum ad hominem
And I'm not even arguing. I'm merely ridiculing and mocking - the only appropriate reaction to utter idiocy.

>>4472349
>THERE IS NO "CORRECT" USE OF WORDS. YOUR IDIOT PRESUMPTION ABOUT A CORRESPONDENCE THEORY OF TRUTH IS OUTDATED, FRIENDO.
This has nothing to do with linguistic prescriptivism, you nutty nitwit. Irregardless of pre- vs descriptivism words have a meaning by common consensus and if you use them incorrectly, you will be called out for your cognitvie deficits.

>IF YOU CANNOT DEFINE THE WORD IN THE MANNER THAT YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO USE IT, THEN IT IS LITERALLY MEANINGLESS.
In other words what you're saying is "bawwwww she doesn't fall for muh semantical bullshittery red herrings". How about posting an actual argument instead? Stop pretending to be retarded.

>BY SELF PROCLAIMING THAT YOU ARE A "SCIENTIST" AND THAT "SCIENCE" IS 100% OBJECTIVE, THIS STRING IS AS INTELLIGIBLE AS "SADF SAD FAS DF ASDGA SDSHG" UNTIL YOU EXPLAIN THE REFERENT OF THESE TERMS WHICH YOU ARE REFERRING TO.
I'm sorry to hear that you have problems understanding the English language. If you ever want to learn it, you can start here: http://learnenglishkids.britishcouncil.org/en/

>NO ACTUALLY YOU SAID PHILOSOPHY. BUT I'LL CONCEDE.
What the fuck? Of course I said "philosophy" because that's what we're talking about. Is short term memory another function in which you're impaired?

>HOW DO YOU "FAIL" AT PHILOSOPHY?
How do you NOT fail at philosophy? Philosphy means failure because it can never produce objective results.

>IT DOES NOT TAKE A GENIUS TO UNDERSTAND BAYESIANISM.
Show me some more highly impressive vocabulary from your philosophy 101 class. (This was sarcasm, in case you didn't notice.)

>YOU MISSED THE SECOND PART WHERE IT SAID "AND I DISAGREE. PROVE WHY YOU'RE RIGHT."
Shifting the burden of proof is a fallacy.