/lit/ - Literature

>>16911560
Meh. Everything of consequence is done by intelligent people and intelligent people make tons of short term bad life decisions because they don't operate entirely and immediately on the instincts of their ancestors.

>>16911560
I never thought it was fair that ad hominem is a fallacy while arguments from authority are still seen as acceptable.

>>16911560
in a world where violence is looked down upon, there is little choice but to forbid the ways which most commonly lead to it.
kike

>>16911560
Fallacies pertain really to the logic of an argument, not the spirit or the meaning of the argument. If someone were to have a slippery slope or a straw man fallacy, that would make the logic of the argument faulty, but the argument itself is by no means any weaker. Really a difference between what is said and what is meant.

>>16911560
This is what I hate about "Ad Hominem"
> You're wrong because you're bad
Fallacious
> You're wrong, also I hate you
Not fallacious, just a non sequitur/rhetorical tactic
> I hate you because you're wrong
Literally entirely fine

>>16911715
this.

>>16911560
Why is a redditor presented as bringing up the ad hominem fallacy when plenty of people on 4chan do so as well?

>>16911580
>Everything of consequence is done by intelligent people
> intelligent people make tons of short term bad life decisions because they don't operate entirely and immediately on the instincts of their ancestors.
Imagine believing this nonsense. Do you watch Rick and Morty, too?

>>16912169
I do not.

>>16911674
t. cowardly white male

>>16911560
>I think this and that are problems with capitalism
>yOu MuSt Be A cOmMiE
>I think this and that are problems with communism
>yOu MuSt Be A nAzI
this is retarded, fuck off
not one time you wouldn't call a SJW a faggot when they call someone a nazi

>>16911715
>You are wrong because you are retarded
Refute this

>>16912729
It's a red herring unless the argument is about whether or not I am retarded.

>>16912738
Implication being that being retarded makes you less cognitively capable and so less capable of summoning cogent argument. It's a pretty reasonable argument. You're just retarded.

>>16912747
Just because you are less likely to come up with a cogent argument doesn’t dispel the possibility that the retard is correct over what is being argued now

>>16912772
That's true but there's little pragmatic value in presuming that a retard is correct

>>16912778
Heuristics aren't based on logic, they're based on probability. They don't actually prove anything, they just generate functional outcomes faster.

>>16911560
Ad hominem: "You're wrong because you're bad."
Chad Hominem: "You're bad because you're wrong."

Ad hominem is totally valid. Almost always arguments are reduced to value judgments because few people ever wanna sit down for a week or two and hash out their assumptions and axioms. And when you're making a value judgment, you get to judge a person's values ergo ad hominem.

For instance, take an argument about social welfare between a socialist and a libertarian. They sit down and hash out assumptions about the role of government, the purpose of social contracts, utilitarianism vs personal liberty. No, they will talk taxes, minorities, racism, etc... And the argument will come down to muh personal responsibility, muh systemic racism. And the only way to resolve the discussion is to side with the less repugnant individual of the two.

>>16912827
Logical truth-conditions are dependent on sense. Logic in debate ultimately proves nothing, either. They serve no function, logical conclusions being tautological and self-evident. Sense always precedes rational discourse. That being said, I don't expect you to understand because you're retarded.

>>16911560
They're both mistaken

>>16912899
This is very charitably an evasion. If not, please look at this truth table until you recognize the problem

>>16912939
Keep posting your tables, bucko. You're still retarded, and therefore also wrong, in my book. I don't expect you to understand, whatwith your concurrent retardation. Just remember me and something will click for you, at some point. Once it does, your retardation will be gone, both for me and you.

>>16912963
Your implicit argument, which you can't even write out in english apparently and thus are forcing me to infer, was this:
1. Logical truth conditions are dependent on sense
2. Heuristics are dependent on sense
3. Heuristics are logic
Can you figure out the problem with this from here, or are you just going to keep calling me a retard?

>>16912982
>Can you figure out the problem
You, being a retard, is from the outset less capable of pointing out logical problems. I don't see any issues.

>are you just going to keep calling me a retard?
Precis. You are at this point one step closer to not being a retard.

>That's true
>but

>>16913006
Your logic is backwards and therefore invalid. This would be valid:
1. Heuristics are logic
2. Logical truth conditions are dependent on sense
3. Heuristics are dependent on sense

This would be valid

1. Heuristics are logic
2. Logic is heuristics
3. Heuristics are dependent on sense
4. Logic is dependent on sense

What you have done is not valid. For being tautological and obvious you are having a hard go of it.

>>16911596
Call to authority is also a fallacy. Equally, it's a perfectly reasonable argument to call someone's character into question.
As it turns out, the only time a logical fallacy applies is in a logical debate or similar constructed format. "Logic" isn't some fundamental, transcendent process of the universe.

>>16913029
Put down the logic already, son. You just took a step back into retardation. All I want for you is to see the light, but you remain retarded.

>>16913054
I understand your point but you are a monkey who can't even fake-formalize your arguments in natural language so you are my inferior.

>>16913006
Not the guy you're arguing with, but I wonder if you truly believe retardation=incapability to say any truth statements. If a retard (a real one) went up to you and said something to the effect of, "John Doe told me he will kill you tomorrow," would you assume that he was wrong based on his retardation?

>>16913054
>Put down the logic already, son.
>son

>>16913066
Suppose I were a monkey. I still managed to get what I wanted out of this discussion, no? My monkeyness does not bother me the slightest bit. Consider yourself not a retard.

>>16913074
You're just retarded, mad and coping

>You're just retarded, mad and coping

>>16913120
You invested effort into contesting something that was never being argued against. Nobody said that heuristics aren't valuable, just that they don't prove anything. Wasting effort is dumb. You are dumb.

>>16913127
Copium

>>16913131
Sorry to tell you but by replying in the manner you did you've proven yourself as filtered and once again retarded.

>>16912724
t. commie/fascist

Sounds like Dunning-Kruger to me OP, come back when you learn more.

>>16913150
you got me anon

>>16912729
That would make the statement "I am retarded" a paradox.

>>16913247
>>16912729
my fucking sides