[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 39 KB, 474x300, a0f0dd59ce5053b1b471abf1b39dc0d9.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13732935 No.13732935 [Reply] [Original]

>uhhhh source?
>Got a source for that?
>Just gonna dismiss everything you say unless you provide a source buddy hehe!

>> No.13732940

who are you quoting?

>> No.13732943
File: 52 KB, 675x680, 1561234057177.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13732943

>> No.13732945
File: 17 KB, 249x243, 69C9C4997CF34788BDA91141FBE41281.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13732945

>> No.13732950

what moron wouldn’t you want a source

>> No.13732963

>>13732950
It's irrelevant to me as to whether someone else has thought of what I think of before

>> No.13732964
File: 63 KB, 542x475, 1561574927409.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13732964

Do you have a source on that?

Source?

A source. I need a source.

Sorry, I mean I need a source that explicitly states your argument. This is just tangential to the discussion.

No, you can't make inferences and observations from the sources you've gathered. Any additional comments from you MUST be a subset of the information from the sources you've gathered. You can't make normative statements from empirical evidence.

Do you have a degree in that field? A college degree? In that field? Then your arguments are invalid. No, it doesn't matter how close those data points are correlated. Correlation does not equal causation.

Correlation does not equal causation.

CORRELATION. DOES. NOT. EQUAL. CAUSATION.

You still haven't provided me a valid source yet.

Nope, still haven't.

>> No.13732979

does your argument depend on a fact or a syllogism?

>> No.13732981

>>13732964
>>13732935
You dislike it just because he doesn't agree with you.

>> No.13732982

>>13732964
Another flawless victory. I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE

>> No.13732989

>>13732940
People who require "sources" when they hear something they disagree with while they have no problem with people who spout the vilest bullshit as long as it serves their interests.

Also the source must come from one of at most three arbitrarily chosen websites. Any other source is by definition invalid becuz muh fake news/russian bots/alt-right

>> No.13733003

This is a failed forced meme

>> No.13733004

>>13732989
>vilest bullshit
God, I hate R*ddit

>> No.13733015

I thought school started again. Why are the greentext, strawman, soijak posts still happening? At least they are less frequent now. Saged and reported this off-topic post.

>> No.13733016

>>13733004
We all love newspeak, don't we. Who would have thought that fake news would come to stand for unpleasant information that does not promote our politicians' and corporates' agenda.

Also Reddit is literally full of bots and paid posters. If you get your news from there, it's your own fault.

>> No.13733026
File: 88 KB, 866x900, 1514987524615.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13733026

>>13733016
It's LITERALLY 1984

>> No.13733029
File: 6 KB, 210x240, soyboy-2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13733029

>>13733026
Sorry Anon. I'm not fat. Use the correct pic please.

>> No.13733041

>>13733016
I was not saying you were wrong, but your post and this one as well comes off as extremely Plebbit. Please excuse yourself back to r/books

>> No.13733048
File: 239 KB, 819x1428, 1556200399177.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13733048

>> No.13733050

>>13733016
>Also Reddit is literally full of paid posters
Source?