/lit/ - Literature

>rowling's dildo

>that argument is a fallacy!

>>10650923

>Hume's guillotine

If they don't call it the principle of parsimony, it's difficult to treat them as a serious intellectual.

>>10650923
The simplest explanation for your post is that you're a brainlet.

>argumentum ad fallacyum fallacy

>dante's inferno

> shrodinger’s cat

>Schrödinger's Rapist

>>10650952
Keke'd

>Being so contrarian that you reject the literal rules of logical thought for the sake of feeling vaguely superior in your own mind

Your virginity is permanent

>>10651234
Fallacies are a meme.

>>10651238
sophism is what's up

>>10651234
Naming fallacies is just shitty debating.

>>10651238
Let me guess. You're going to reference r/Atheism and tell me that the fundamentals of logical error that every intellectual has accepted for thousands of years are for soyboys.

Grow up you psued

>>10650923
>Marki's plier

>>10651234
>rules of logical thought

>>10651267
>I don't care about coherence

>>10651234
>claims to defend Logic™
>thinks a razor is a hard-and-fast rule

>Non-aggression principle

>>10651286
>implying I ever said anything like that

I'd say non sequitur but I'm sure you'll get upset.

>>10651278
coherence is artificial
so you shouldn't

>>10651339
Are you trying to argue that there's no such thing aa truth? Is this what the peterson fags have done?

>>10651234
It's not mocking the thing itself but how people use it. Whenever an argument gets too complicated, you use the ockham's razor card and disregard what is being said as useless theory to stick with your limited worldview.

>>10651297
Go on, I want to see what bullshit you pull to defend the idea that your mention of "the literal rules of logical thought" somehow had nothing to do with any of the posts before yours.

>>10651254

>>10651248
Eh, no, actually quite the opposite. Appealing to fallacies is a /pol/ thing.

>>10651356
Yes

>>10651360
Rules aren't laws, bucko.

>>10651248
You're the psued here buddy

>>10651248
Epic retort bruh