Bitter Pills Thread

[Anonymous No.12341671]

Ad hominem is not fallacious.

[Anonymous No.12341687]

Skip logic learn rhetoric.

[Anonymous No.12341706]

Slippery slope is not fallacious though.

[Anonymous No.12341725]

whataboutism when in proper context is absolutely not fallacious.

[Anonymous No.12341771]

>>12341687
this

[Anonymous No.12341780]

>>12341687
To what end?

[Anonymous No.12341782]

>>12341725
>>12341687
examples?

[Anonymous No.12341807]

>>12341706
sometimes the slope is actually very slippery

>>12341687
skip both

[Anonymous No.12341817]

>>12341687
>mfw people unironically buy Schopenhauer's 'the art of being right' without realizing he was mocking them

[Anonymous No.12341852]

>>12341687
>tfw learned rhetoric so I can win arguments on imageboards with my superior oratory skills and demolish my assailants with facts and logic

[Anonymous No.12342340]

right is right and left is wrong

[Anonymous No.12342359]

>>12341671
There are no fallacies. There is good reasoning and bad, but as soon as someone accuses you of committing the ______ fallacy, you know you're talking to a moron.

[Anonymous No.12342363]

This may be the stupidest thread I've ever seen on 4chan and I just came back from [s4s]

[Anonymous No.12342428]

>>12342359
The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world that there are no fallacies.

[Anonymous No.12342443]

>>12342363
This is 4channel, newfriend.
>You have to go back

[Anonymous No.12342466]

>>12341782
>whataboutism
jamal and deshawn are discussing jamal's latest romantic conquest.
>nigga ain't no female worth that kinda headache
>whatabout dem titties doe?
>tru tru

[Anonymous No.12342475]

>>12342428
the biggest dick OP's mom ever pulled out of her ass was mine

[Anonymous No.12342485]

>>12341782
If you can establish that nearly everyone shares a certain aspect then it invalidates the argument that a given party is deserving of criticism for sharing the aspect. If everyone is equally guilty then it is pointless to find fault with only one party.

[Anonymous No.12342506]

Talent and intelligence are nearly useless on their own.

[Anonymous No.12342531]

>>12342485
No, you idiot. In that case everyone is equally deserving of criticism. Besides, you can hardly critique every party at the same time as you are critiquing a party who is equally at fault, which is why whataboutism is always faulty.

[Anonymous No.12342555]

>>12342506
What does it mean for something to be useful on it’s own?

[Anonymous No.12342603]

>>12342531
>In that case everyone is equally deserving of criticism
Not if the realization is that there is no true fault - just uncomfortable truths.
>Besides, you can hardly critique every party at the same time as you are critiquing a party who is equally at fault
If you fail to do so then the spirit of your argument reveals itself to be disingenuous and prejudicial. Perhaps criticizing the aspect itself would lend the brevity in argument that you seek - that way illustrating a short list of offending parties can show the trend in universality of the fault.

[Anonymous No.12342640]

>>12342603
>Saudi Arabia should stop cutting off heads, it's inhumane
>but what about China?

The party who is committing the fallacy is the one being disingenuous and prejudicial, choosing not to reject the criticism as such but to counter it by saying another party is at fault also.

[Anonymous No.12342675]

>>12342555
Capable of leading the owner/weilder to a state of happiness, fulfillment, and integration.

[Anonymous No.12342691]

>>12342640
Perhaps you should address the issue of cutting off of heads, since that seems to be the issue - and not the one specific party that is removing heads. Why focus on one party?

[Anonymous No.12342838]

>>12342691
The point is is that whataboutism tries to negate that criticism without tackling it. Sure; in an ideal world critique on principal level should apply to everyone, but the context shouldn't be overlooked.
Why not focus on one party, for example? Because one might reside in the country, might want to actualize change, etc. That signals a preference, but hardly prejudice or disingenuous behaviour.

[Anonymous No.12342913]

>>12342838
>tries to negate that criticism without tackling it
I will admit that I do this but only when I believe that there is no real problem to be critiqued, just prejudice that is focused on a single party by many sources.
>Because one might reside in the country
>self-improvement
I do not find fault with this. I find fault with dogpiling of innocents.

[Anonymous No.12343724]

>>12342475
>being a fifthly sodomite

[Anonymous No.12343855]

Taking these bitter pillis stunting your development and turning you into hateful little bigots to have 0 willful effect on anything or anyone besides your own contained void. They are chemical castration pills.

[Anonymous No.12343856]

>>12341671
It is if your reason for using it results in hypocrisy when followed to its origin.

>>12342359
The fact that there is no invalid reasoning does not mean there are no fallacies. Humans are by nature incapable of acting irrationally, for they are rational beings. Your observation is meaningless. Fallacies spawn when what you call bad reasoning entails contradictory reasoning from a reasonably non-technical evaluation standpoint - that is, ignoring literal semantics and considering the speakers intentions - to a realistic degree.

[Anonymous No.12344192]

>>12343724
sixthly gomorran

[Anonymous No.12344274]

>>12342359
Logical fallacies are just the common forms of bad reasoning divided in to groups by their essence. Its a useful tool but I do agree that people who just list out fallacies without elaborating any further are morons.

[Anonymous No.12344307]

Should I read Kant in English even though my mothertongue is German

[Anonymous No.12344569]

>>12344192
best post of the hour