/lit/ - Literature

>>14929887
>What are some other telltale signs of pseudo-intellectual brainlets who want to sound way smarter than they actually are?

Listing fallacies and insinuating people pointing them out by name is bad. Sounds like you don't like getting called out on your poorly constructed arguments.

>>14929887
here's your (you) you delicate fuck

>>14929887
Some of these are legitimate criticisms when having an argument.

>>14929900
>what is fallacy fallacy

>>14929934
When just because it is a fallacy, doesn't mean it is wrong. But that still needs to be proven, and the fact that you used a fallacy for a claim does not really raise confidence. Unless of course you are just out to have your biases confirmed.

Based

ad hominem

>>14929887
I have no problem with people pointing out fallacies (though they could be less obnoxious). My problem is these people can't even identify fallacies correctly. Nine-tenth of a time they either see fallacies where there is not even an argument, or declare fallacy based on superficial wording similarities. Mass education was a mistake.

>>14929887
wtf is a steelman

>>14929887
this is so true

source?

>>14929887
I only have a problem when they don't point out why it is a fallacy.

>NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO YOU CAN'T POINT OUT THE FLAWS IN MY """"ARGUMENTS""" IT'S NOT FAIR WAAAAAAA WAAAAAAA

>>14929887
>a priori
>redpilled
>as a woman
>hegel
>marxist
>nick land
>trump
>politics in general
>unironically a faggot or tranny
>unironically a nigger
>fuck jannies

>>14931548
This 100 percent. I think part of the reason why it’s annoying is that normal people who don’t want to sound fucking pretentious don’t need to call out “that’s an x fallacy”, they just say that they think your reasoning is flawed and they point out where the jump in logic takes place and maybe gives an example of absurdity using understandable reasoning instead of just calling on some higher ideal of a fallacy.

>>14929887
based
redditfaggots seething

>>14929887
Newtons Flaming Laser sword

>>14931548
>Mass education was a mistake

Turning education into a cultural signifier a la modern sitcoms was a fucking mistake. The commodification of higher education was a mistake. Making people think that information separate from actual action was a mistake. Just a constant triumph of the object over the subject.

>>14934918
>Making people think that information separate from actual action was a mistake

Making people think that information separate from actual action is valuable was a mistake

>>14929887
>What are some other telltale signs of pseudo-intellectual brainlets who want to sound way smarter than they actually are?
Listing Occam's razor and the burden of proof together with logical fallacies?

>>14934924
>Uh-oh buckaroo, that's a list of good ideas. EXCEPT THE TWO I PERSONALLY DISLIKE!

>>14934941
These two are not logical fallacies you fucking imbecile

>>14935086
What part of the OP talks about logical fallacies you midwit? Woah, it's almost like the list isn't just logical fallacies!

It would only be homosexual if they only said "That's a _____ fallacy! You are wrong!", you sound like an asshole. But if you point out the flaw in their argument is not wrong, just say what's wrong with it without throwing buzzwords at it and you'll sound smart.

>>14935158
If someone makes a point and you try to refute the argument instead of the point you look like an idiot who can't actually refute the point.

>>14931548
This, especially if you try and add some poetry and some literal autist calls it a fallacy.

>>14935116
So you think that part of the scientific method and knowing who has the burden of proof so you can avoid begging the question like a fucking retard are marks of the pseudointellectual? How much of a stupid piece of shit do you have to be to actually believe that.

>>14929955
>proven
Popper would like to have a word with you

>>14935179
If a statement relies upon falsehood then is not the statement also false? A argument can still be true if it's only built upon a few fallacies, but if i was to say something backed up by only falsehoods, then i would be saying bullshit.

>>14935196
Oh, I get it. You're the kind of pseud the OP was talking about, that's why you're so mad. I lke how you strung three of them together into a word salad of a sentence that does nothing other than circulate signifiers. Good job. Is your wife done satisfying her bull yet, or do you still have time to play animal crossing now that you're done here?

>>14935228
Not necessarily. You can come to a correct conclusion independent of flawed reasoning. Like my uncle who spends his time rambling about lizard people, only to conclude that we need to save the environment.

>>14929887
> What are some other telltale signs of pseudo-intellectual brainlets who want to sound way smarter than they actually are?
Posting on /lit/

>>14935401
I would still say that the strenght of the argument is very important to the point you are making, me saying that "I saw in a dream..." does not give legitimacy to your point, that is the point of pointing out logical inconsistencies, and fallacies only really convince people who already believe in your point.

>>14935440
I'm not saying it's not important, I'm saying that a point can stand despite the argument being shit. Clearly a strong argument is better, but that doesn't inherently mean that a weak argument leads to a wrong point.

>>14935401
>>14935179
There is no “point” without a reasonable argument behind it. If you say “everybody wants to fuck goats because the towel in my bathroom is damp.” your “point” doesn’t follow from the argument. If you just make points without strong arguments you’re not making points, you’re just stating beliefs or subjective perceptions that don’t communicate. A point has to make sense, that’s what the argument does. You’re suppose to demonstrate why you have a “point”.

>>14935463
Yeah bud congrats on being a fucking retard and saying exactly what I'm saying. If I sit here and poorly argue for a point that Kant made, and reach his point guess what? There is a much better argument for the point I've just said, independent of my reasoning. Good job reinforcing my point that you're a pseud.

>>14931548
Fallacies are no arguments

>>14935473
You’re not saying anything. You’re saying that one can have a point without an argument. That’s not the case. You can reach Kant’s point with a bad argument, because Kant’s point depends upon his arguments. That’s why he uses the terms he does, that’s why he wrote 3 700+ pages books to make those points. You won’t independently reach Kant’s point, unless you make a similar argument, retard.

>>14935492
Goddam you're dumb. I'm saying you can evaluate conclusions independent of a given argument due to the fact that their can be a separate, stronger argument leading to the same conclusion. The fact that you think that a point is reliant on a single, given argument just goes to show how fucking stupid you are.

>>14935505
No you can’t evaluate conclusions seperate from their arguments. Without their arguments, what are they conclusions of? Independent of their arguments, they’re just assertions, not conclusions. Structurally, they are completely different. A shaman claiming prunes deal with constipation because the Gods have ordained it doesn’t have a point even if we know that independently from his argument prunes do in fact help with constipation. He might have a true believe, but he doesn’t have an good argument for it, there is no point. So when dealing with someone’s conclusions, you don’t say they have a “point” unless it makes sense and it’s justified. You’re not evaluating their conclusions, when you consider that believe independently from their argument. You are evaluating a structurally different entity, a seperate proposition that is no related to their conclusions unless you attach back to their argument.

>>14935562
>A shaman claiming prunes deal with constipation because the Gods have ordained it doesn’t have a point even if we know that independently from his argument prunes do in fact help with constipation

t. never read Nietzsche
For you truth's like a woman; it's something you have no experience with.

>>14935594
I’ve read enough Nietzsche. He can actually make a strong argument when he wants to. He made enough of them to gain the privilege of making assertions, aphorism and cryptic points that scholars have later formalized. But without him actually writing essays here and there, he would just be another literary writer, not a serious philosopher. Independently of that, you have clearly not read any other serious philosopher. You can hide behind anonymity and post brainlet wojaks but irl you would spill spaghetti unable to defend your claims.

>>14935614
Nope, in the Gay Science Nietzche makes the regular assertion that a wrong "truth" the benefits you is worth more than a correct "truth" that offers no benefit. So yeah, your shaman makes an excellent example of Nietzsche. Further, if you read the posts I've made you could see that I'm basing my points of Nietzsche and Baudrillard, but hey, I doubt you can do that.

>But without him actually writing essays here and there, he would just be another literary writer, not a serious philosopher

Woahhhhhhhhhhhhh dude like if a philosopher didn't like, write philosophy and stuff he wouldn't be a philosopher? Woahhh big-brain time over here! Here's another artist's renditioning of you

>>14935642
>makes the regular assertion that a wrong "truth" the benefits you is worth more than a correct "truth" that offers no benefit.

How does this have anything to do with your “point” that you can evaluate a conclusion independent of an argument? This is a non-sequitur. It doesn’t support or defend your “point”. Looks like your wojaks and appeal to authority have failed you. Who cares who you’re citing if you can’t even appropriately use that knowledge to make a point. It’s almost as if someone who believes that they can just accept whatever truth the want can’t even keep track of their own logic. Color me surprise.

Whats wrong with appeal to authority? I am not allowed to cite a scientific study by credible sources? Better than going off a whim

>>14935678
Congrats retard, you're now aware that I've been making more than one point. Good job!

>>14935690
There's not an inherent issue with that, the issue is that it's not a good thing to base the entirety of an argument off. Additionally, people sometimes will use an authorities' opinion on something that they aren't an authority about.

>>14935678
>It’s almost as if someone who believes that they can just accept whatever truth the want can’t even keep track of their own logic

>implying there's a way to actually justify something as a truth
>Laughs in epistemology

>>14935694
>Congrats retard, you're now aware that I've been making more than one point. Good job!
You’ve made no points. You just made an assertion and followed it with a statement from an authority that doesn’t support the point you tried to make while being a absolute smug pseud the whole way through.

>>14935700
>Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned

>>14931548
>Nine-tenth of a time they either see fallacies where there is not even an argument
Lmao so true

>>14929887
unironically the image you posted.

>>14935721

Point 1
>You can come to a correct conclusion independent of flawed reasoning

Point 2
>For you truth's like a woman; it's something you have no experience with

Point 3
>Goddam you're dumb

>>14935733
>tfw no one will ever beat you so hard you detach signifiers from signifieds

why live bros

>>14935747
None if those are points. They are assertions with bad arguments, 2 of them without arguments at all. The first “point” doesn’t even follow because there cant be a correct conclusion from a bad argument. Once you evaluate it independently it stops being the conclusion that was made and becomes an independet assertion which becomes true/correct based on a different argument.

>>14935198

Popper can eat a dick.
Corroborate that, asshole.

>>14935784

>Cant be a correct conclusion from a bad argument

Argument : There are ghosts in the forest, I shouldn't go there at night.
Conclusion : I should stay in the fucking house at night
Reality : There are predators that will fuck my shit up in the forest at night
Conclusion : The same

So I get the same (correct) conclusion from two different arguments. Pic related, your skull.

>>14935784
>None if those are points.

Hey look at this picture I found of you. Feel free to come back when you manage to be intelligent for the first time in your life.

>>14929887
I'm not sure what the correct term for it would be, but when someone posts an image with their answer that mocks the other side (like the brainlet ones in this thread), it usually means they're unwilling to engage with the other side's responses. If someone has accepted an answer as unshakeable truth, it usually means they weren't smart enough to engage with the question beyond a certain point. Real intelligence is humble.

I understand in debate contests and the like you have to display unshakeable confidence, but there's no need to do so in this kind of environment. It's not like you get a trophy for arguing someone into submission on 4chan. It's a way of venting your anger in an environment without consequences, I suppose, but that's a bit lame.

>>14935819

This is now a brainjak thread.

>>14935816
Those aren’t structurally the same conclusions. They are both only “correct” if you already know the true one. Without the “reality” case in your post, the other one wouldn’t be correct. It would be incorrect based on the argument. It only becomes correct once you add that “reality” case. Wven your post proves me right. Remove that reality case, how would you know it’s correct? You don’t, retard.

>>14935847
Look at the picture I found of these two

>>14935848
>>14935820

>>14929955
>When just because it is a fallacy, doesn't mean it is wrong
yet it's a fallacy therefore fuck off retard

>>14935862

>>14935876
That's all I've got

>>14935864

>Being this much of a midwit

Just because fallacies are logically inconstant, doesn't mean every statement that contains a fallacy is wrong.

Slippery slope fallacies prove to be prophetic more often than not.

>>14935905
>>14935864