/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15138327]

> He is wrong because [insert ad hominem]

[Anonymous No.15138363]

>>15138327
> He is wrong because
pajeets are just biologically inferior to us, as proved by their inferior art (they started making art only after the greeks came across them), their lack of science (they discovered science only after the brits came across them), and their un-love for freedom and thus military weakness (they have been subjugated by anyone who came across them)

[Anonymous No.15138443]

>>15138327
>He is right because [NULL POINT ERROR]

[Anonymous No.15138473]

>>15138363
>they started making art only after the greeks came across them
false
>they discovered science only after the brits came across them
partly true
>they have been subjugated by anyone who came across them
true

[Anonymous No.15138482]

ad hominem is good and is not a fallacy

[Anonymous No.15138487]

Most are deprived of any real spiritual evolution , such information is inaccessible due to their low assemblage point (level of consciousness).


Glad to see few awakened lit shitposters, we need unified effort to awaken the incapacitated masses

[Anonymous No.15138488]

>>15138482
t. oonga boonga bugman
kys

[Anonymous No.15138511]

>>15138363
utter retard who thinks collective failure = individual shortcomings

>>15138327
I've been thinking about this lately. Is there a clearer admission of intellectual weakness than ad hominems to discredit a thought? Whataboutism is just admitting that you've lost. People who say "X isn't right about B because he wasn't right about A" are essentially saying "I believe all humans are as unidimensional as I am and can't have multiple facets with varying degress of quality". You end up with ridiculous opinions like "Marx was wrong about labour because he was a jew who called a political opponent a nigger" or "Animal rights are a mistake because the nazis were the first government to ever make laws about them"

[Anonymous No.15138518]

>>15138473
indus valley trash is art as much as african masks and mud huts are. for the rest, it's incontrovertibly true that indian art didn't start before the 3rd-2nd century BC

[Anonymous No.15138519]

>>15138327
Patrician intellectuals: refutability is a positive
Pleb pseuds: refutability is a negative

[Anonymous No.15138525]

>>15138511
healthy indians : healthy europeans = healthy monkeys : healthy humans
your argument is literally : muh individual monkey.

[Anonymous No.15138568]

>>15138327
>preach hippie shit
>own a fleet of expensive cars and watches
>commit bio terrorism using your hippie paramilitary unit

[Anonymous No.15138579]

>>15138327
Psychopath charlatan

[Anonymous No.15138582]

>>15138579
empty words

[Anonymous No.15138587]

>>15138327
>retroactively refuted by UG Krishnamurti (PBUH)

[Anonymous No.15138597]

>>15138525
India (or China, or Iran) have a much older and much richer culture than most European countries. New worlders have literally no culture. Racism can be a rather intelligently constructed position, but your version of it is denying the possibility of individuals being better than the mass. You're denying the existence of genius in this world. Like it or not, a nigger like Ralph Ellison or pajeet like Salman Rushdie are still universes beyond your small mind. You would not be able to form a single thought as big as their tiniest ones in a hundred lifetimes. So, yes, muh individual monkey >>>> muh "I can claim the achievements of others as mine because I was born in the same culture"

[Anonymous No.15138604]

>>15138568
>preach hippie shit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0O9IK8bxM8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmAo99SW6_E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaPsuB6J8OM

Not only ad hominem, but also straw man

[Anonymous No.15138618]

>>15138597
> denying the possibility of individuals being better than the mass
lmao, what made you infer that from what i wrote?
i'm denying the possibility of the best pajeets to be better than the best europeans, therefore the possibility of pajeet philosophy to be better than european philosophy. it's very simple, actually.

[Anonymous No.15138624]

>>15138511
>Is there a clearer admission of intellectual weakness than ad hominems to discredit a thought?

People who memorize fallacies like a redditor are probably more intellectually weak than the person who ad homs constantly. The ad hom guy isn't going to be a credentialist white knighting faggot that comes to the rescue of journalists, scientists, and other authority figures. In the long term, he is going to be immune to charlatans, conmen, and bad information from authority. Meanwhile, the midwit thinks character can be detached from what people say and will eventually be taken for a ride by someone.

[Anonymous No.15138632]

>>15138618
> i'm denying the possibility of the best pajeets to be better than the best europeans
and im also asserting that the best pajeets are intellectually inferior to the european average.

[Anonymous No.15138738]

>>15138618
>>15138632
>Cletus the cousinfucker is smarter than Nagarjuna or Laozi
>a modern american can even be considered as much of a human as a papuan forest dweller when it comes to personal freedom, knowledge of his environment, political involvement, and control over the terms of his existence
"m-muh race sez I'm better"
What have (You) brought to this world?

>>15138624
"midwit" is a very bottom-wit term, used by people who assumes others are as retarded as them and couldn't come up with a simple thought like "rejecting an idea based on the person who formulated it is simple-minded". My argument stands: if you're not intelligent enough to compartmentalize thoughts, if you believe that individuals can be characterized in a single homogenous mass, you're not intelligent enough to discern "bad information from authority" or whatever bullshit way you want to phrase that. Hitler, or Marx, have some very good ideas and some dangerously bad ideas. Throwing away entire fields of reflexion out of a distaste for an individual is unintelligent, period. Your blabbing about being influenced and "taken for a ride" doesn't apply to people who think on their own. My position is precisely the opposite of a credentialist one.

[Anonymous No.15138766]

>>15138327
You can do some bad stuff and preach some good stuff, but your actions do taint the word you're spreading. You don't have to be a saint or a monk if you preach, but you don't start a scam cult either after the first one got you kicked out your country - and let a loud sociopath woman do your dirty work while you smoke opium all day. That is not enlightenment, and you're a fool if you still support people like him.

[Anonymous No.15138925]

honestly based osho

[Anonymous No.15139053]

>>15138738
Midwit is an apt description of a certain phenomenon. People that get assblasted by it are typically the very thing being denoted. In your case, it's apt because you seem to be obsessed with being seen as intelligent based on some dumb reddit shit about fallacy usage, which is a common mark of the midwit.

Compartmentalizing thoughts is the exact opposite of being intelligent. It's analytic-tier rationalist robo-faggotry that seeks to break up something that is organic while learning nothing from it. The method here ends up as a machine that takes in real world arguments as an input and spews out a fallacy label as an output with some sort of black-box bullshit in the middle (e.g. "compartmentation"). There's really nothing "intelligent" about this in the cognitive sense of problem solving, understanding, interpreting, or learning. It is more akin to Horkheimer's Eclipse of Reason: a methodical unthinking "thinking" machine-like process whose goal is to slap fallacy labels on words, phrases, and events like an automated box factory.

Real epistemology is social. A dialectical situation will include your interlocutor(s) along with their character, history, whether you trust them or not, how you feel about them, the context of the dialogue, and other pragmatic factors. Ironically, you are implicitly doing it right now in response to me because I dare question your internet nerd folk-knowledge about fallacies. Someone that doesn't include these factors in their thought processes is going to be a lot more stupid than the dimwit who calls someone a tard consistently, because the midwit -- in his ever drive to label things as fallacies -- lacks important follow-on questions to his interlocutor about this ad hom that would allow him to spot conmen and act like a good thinker. E.g. how good is the evidence for the attack on character? Is this issue relevant to the situation/context? Is some bias present? Is the bias good/bad? Are they being honest? Are they credible? What's their reputation like? Do they have a history of lying, bias, or credibility issues? Etc. None of these questions will present themselves to the ""intelligent"" midwit who cries "ad hominem" and "thinks on their own" (lol) because they anchor themselves to a shit thinking process with a shit end product and think the dialogue is over because they've labeled something a fallacy. Oh, and even worse than the dimwit, you WILL get played eventually. Your thought process guarantees it.

[Anonymous No.15139151]

>>15139053
nigger did you just take two hours to respond with "lmao u gettin playd reddit midwit muh fallacy" when I'm precisely advocating for open-mindedness and questioning sources and biases? You're so hard-set to strawman the shit out of things with a projected imagined archetype of a midwit. I'm doing the things you accuse me of not doing by doing the things you think aren't worth doing.

You're a retard, I have no interest in changing your mind, keep convincing yourself that I am what you say I am. Keep thinking that the ability to detach from character is a flaw, or that it implies an inability to put things in perspective with critical sense.

[Anonymous No.15139176]

>that's gay

[Anonymous No.15139218]

>>15138327
One can respect Osho solely on the lack of dogma of bullshit religions .Interesting that only few who have gone through stages of consciousness can understand him while to rest he is just an actor , such vain people are filtered by spiritual life , they are not at stage of personal evolution where an entry into such teachings is possible.

[Anonymous No.15139226]

>>15139151
Calm down tardo, I'm refreshing five boards' catalogs at once and about three dozen threads. The universe doesn't center around you (pretty big tell about your individualistic worldview tho, really nailed who you are). We started with your dumb question, "Is there a clearer admission of intellectual weakness than ad hominems to discredit a thought?" Which I pointed out is not really a weakness at all, to which you responded with a not very open-minded take. If you factor out the speculative stuff on mid-wits and reddit (which I'm right about lmao), you're still a closed-minded moron that can't keep up with common counter-arguments against fallacy theory from the literature on epistemology and informal logic (your personal epistemology is like 20-30 years behind the literature. I know this, because I actually read about it, you don't). If indeed you were open-minded and all about questioning, you would act in a way congruent with your perceived virtues. Your actions in dialogue with me show no such thing, thus you are all talk. Take your L, bitch.

[Anonymous No.15139242]

>>15138327
>says miracles are not possible
>believes in past lives and other nonsense