/lit/ - Literature

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1945710]

I am a christian, but I am willing to sink to athiest levels in order to match your feeble minded heads in this message.
Literature is a gift, if not from the gods above, than from the people that had lived before us. Just as we were passed down the art of hunting, we were passed down the art of Literature. Literature is wonderful , a testament to mankind. Us humans have learned how to manufacture this amazing export and showcase all the talents we have through Literature.

This brings me to the problem I have come to encounter on 4chan.org, humour. Instead of using your gift of Literature, you immature basement dwellers have turned to humour. Humour is not natural and should be erased from the earth. Do you see jokes in the bible? the qu'ran? the decleration of independence (or whatever it is you Americans fawn over)? do you see animals telling jokes? Do you see animals laughing at us when we makes faces or act funny?

The answer my "friends" is no. Humour is a sin, it is a disgusting hedonist byproduct created to stimulate a reaction identical to that of injecting a narcotic. It sickens me, and I can't stand the fact that you people take Literature so lightly.

Literature is serious and I will not let it be mixed in with this shithole that I have discovered. I have come to save a dying art, and I will stay until my work here is done.

what are your guys plans for the rest of the year?
pic unrelated

[Anonymous No.1945713]

k

[Anonymous No.1945716]

0/10

[Anonymous No.1945718]

Trolling is an art; one you don't possess.

0/10

[sage goes in all !AmPUgxW1hE No.1945719]

/lit/ is not your personal toilet/mental/digestive repository

this is now a spiderman thread

commence dump

[the airhornsman No.1945720]

BEEYURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

[Anonymous No.1945724]

>Humor
>Like injecting a narcotic.

Nope. There is no resemblance in any way.

[sage goes in all !AmPUgxW1hE No.1945726]

also brownbear, are you drunk?

or just bipolar

[Anonymous No.1945727]

>>1945724
They're similar, in that they both serve to dull the boundless pain of existing.

[sage goes in all !AmPUgxW1hE No.1945729]

[sage goes in all !AmPUgxW1hE No.1945731]

[Anonymous No.1945733]

>>1945710
>do you see animals telling jokes?
I don't see (non-human) animals writing any of your precious literature either.

[sage goes in all !AmPUgxW1hE No.1945737]

>>1945733
not true, I hear Shakespeare's plays were actually written by a bunch of monkeys or something

[Truman Capote !!cO9KVBDtkqQ No.1945739]

"A serious and good philosophical work could be written consisting entirely of jokes."

[Anonymous No.1945740]

>>1945716
>>1945718
>>1945713
>>1945733
you are everything wrong with /lit/, you are worse than triptrolls.

bump so your butts hurt even more

[Anonymous No.1945743]

>>1945733
Animals do tell jokes, of sorts. Macaques have been observed playing a primitive form of "got your nose", and displaying amusement at it. And chimpanzees are noted for being fond of schadenfreude, but it remains to be seen whether this will evolve into genuine comedy.

[Anonymous No.1945744]

brownbear I feel you

[sage goes in all !AmPUgxW1hE No.1945750]

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1945758]

breaking hearts and saving lives

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1945759]

>>1945758
>>1945758

fightin the good fight

for everyone else in this thread
see pic

[Anonymous No.1945760]

>>1945739

DId you hear that George Berkeley died? His girlfriend stopped seeing him...

[sage goes in all !AmPUgxW1hE No.1945767]

>>1945759
>>1945758
if you weren't fueled by your own respective egos, your arguments would hold more weight

as they are, however, they do not. So, once again, sage for trolling

[sage goes in all !AmPUgxW1hE No.1945770]

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1945771]

>>1945767
is this guy serious or what lol

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1945774]

>>1945767
>>1945767

seems like all you need to do these days to be 'trolling' is either:

1. have a different opinion to someone
2. try to educate them

weird huh?

[sage goes in all !AmPUgxW1hE No.1945775]

>>1945771

[sage goes in all !AmPUgxW1hE No.1945777]

>>1945774
you have an opinion

the manner in which you "educate" others is about as one sided and irrational as the o'reilly factor, and it speaks less to your argument than it does to your desire to place yourself above others

[sage goes in all !AmPUgxW1hE No.1945780]

Fun fact: Ralph Waldo Emerson was good friends with Thomas Carlyle

pic related

[Anonymous No.1945782]

>>1945710

Hey dude this is a great essay you should get it published, we'll talk more when your ban is done because I just reported you.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1945789]

>>1945782
more like
>we'll talk more when my ban is done
because I just reported you for abusing the report function enjoy you ban

[sage goes in all !AmPUgxW1hE No.1945790]

the Pelopponesian war was not so much a war between Athens and Sparta as a proxy war engineered by the Persian Empire to keep the city states of Greece weak and in perpetual turmoil

[Anonymous No.1945794]

>>1945777

No, we're just trying to help them suck less.

Here's the truth, friends: people will judge you. They won't tell you they're judging you, but they will. We who try to help you get judged less often are your friends. The people who don't help you, who say 'hey man, we're all the same, man' - to them, you're nothing but a nigger. They want you off their lit. They want you off their porch. They don't give a fuck what happens to your mind. They regard you as born slaves to be disregarded and disinherited. From the bottom of my heart, I adjure you - give yourselves a break! Don't help these people to cut you off from your birthright - the world's great literature.

[Anonymous No.1945796]

>>1945782
>>1945789
/lit/ hits a new low. Congratulations gentlemen.

[Anonymous No.1945797]

>>1945789


> /lit/ is not your personal toilet/mental/digestive repository

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1945803]

>>1945797

so guys is using greentext like this supposed to signify muttering under your breath as though you weren't entirely confident over the validity or truth of your statement or something

[sage goes in all !AmPUgxW1hE No.1945805]

>>1945794

[Anonymous No.1945806]

>>1945760

I got this and laughed inwardly, but it was more a sort of 'heh, yes, I got it' laugh.

[Anonymous No.1945813]

To be serious, much good literature is humorous in some way.

Pic related, it's what you get when you cross Schopenhauer's world outlook with art criticism - the best black comedian ever to have been put into print.

[sage goes in all !AmPUgxW1hE No.1945815]

>>1945803
your response marks you as the smaller man in this argument

[Anonymous No.1945818]

I don't agree, but in any case Brownbear is certainly not being serious. Humour is part of literature. What I think he's really against is rote facetiousness.

[Anonymous No.1945821]

>>1945790
can't tell if troll or really stupid.jpg

that is one of those theories, attractive just for its contra-traditional outlandishness, that a few scholars every decade entertain simply in order to draw professional attention to a new book or article they've written. its the 9/11 truther movement of the 5th c.

And before you stout spouting facts of persian intervention, note that I'm not denying their involvement or that they recognized they stood to benefit from lengthening the war when possible, just that they masterminded the chess match.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1945822]

>>1945815
>argument
>two people responding to each other heatedly

did your parents fight a lot when you were a kid or something

[sage goes in all !AmPUgxW1hE No.1945828]

>>1945821
of course they didn't start it

but they did a damn good job of milking it to no end

[Anonymous No.1945830]

Hey BB and DE

Can you help me figure out why a good old boy like myself, who is kind and fair and loving to all people, can really really hate the both of you and not have a single bad feelings towards anyone else in the entire world? I mean, is it me?

> inb4 butt hurt dweller, god those losers are so predictable

[sage goes in all !AmPUgxW1hE No.1945833]

>>1945822
yeah but they did so with typewritten speeches referencing Hegel and early Goethe whilst standing on mahogany podiums

if mum missed a citation dad would throw a frying pan at her and take away 9 points for inexcusable plagiarism

sometimes they would touch each other in inappropriate places whenever Wagner entered the debate


can we not talk about this ok?

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1945837]

>>1945830
>>1945830

i think it'd probably because you take the internet too seriously.

either that or you're just rebelling against your natural superiors because you just read 1984

[Anonymous No.1945843]

>>1945822
argument

ar·gu·ment
   /ˈɑrgyəmənt/ Show Spelled[ahr-gyuh-muhnt] Show IPA
–noun
1.
an oral disagreement; verbal opposition; contention; altercation: a violent argument.
2.
a discussion involving differing points of view; debate: They were deeply involved in an argument about inflation.
3.
a process of reasoning; series of reasons: I couldn't follow his argument.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/argument

Note 2.

It really is getting tiresome around here with all these low tier posters, who don't even know definitions of basic words and phrases, yet still feel the need to stick their oar in at every opportunity.

Lurk moar faggot

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1945844]

>>1945843
>>1945843

>telling Deep&Edgy to 'lurk moar'

holy shit, this your first fucking day here?

[sage No.1945846]

>>1945837

Wasn't that humor?

[sage No.1945847]

I find all of this gay incidentally.

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1945850]

>>1945846
>>1945846

nope

[sage No.1945855]

>>1945850

Oh come on browneye, don't sell yourself short. Just because it's shit humor, it's still humor.

Lol nice OC as well. Didn't think you were enough of a fagg0t already eh brah?

[sage No.1945859]

>>1945855

furgot to sage lol

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1945861]

>>1945855
>>1945855

>calling me browneye

aren't you a little young to be posting here on 4chan?

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1945862]

>>1945843
>an oral disagreement
My disagreeing with someone isn't an argument. It's just a disagreement.

>a discussion involving differing points of view; debate
but that's not at all an argument. A muslim and a christian talking isn't automatically an argument.

>a process of reasoning
Arguments are processes of reasoning, but not all processes of reasoning are arguments.

[sage No.1945868]

>>1945861

>browneye

Lol. But that's beside the point, nigger. You're CLEARLY too gay!

begone.gif

[Anonymous No.1945867]

>>1945862
Lurk moar faggot

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1945869]

>>1945868
>>1945868

>nigger
>>>/b/

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1945872]

why is it that there's always an idiot in every thread that thinks a lexical definition is going to solve all his problems

[Anonymous No.1945876]

>>1945794

Truth.

[sage No.1945883]

>>1945869

Too mainstream4me, kike

[Behemoth !!Twl3DmqEY/B No.1945882]

>>1945872
Because resorting to authority is easier than thinking.

[Anonymous No.1945895]

>this shithole that I have discovered


MOAR

[Truman Capote !!cO9KVBDtkqQ No.1945897]

[sage No.1945899]

>>1945895

lawl

[sage No.1945910]

>>1945897

lol do you have a daily quota for posting that truman? Awful writer incidentally. I can only assume you're even worse. Well anyway it's been real chaps

>>tripfags are the biggest fags in the world

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1945916]

bump

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1945917]

>>1945910
>>1945910

anti-sage

[Anonymous No.1945919]

>>1945862
>>1945862
You seem not to be very good at basic comprehension.

>My disagreeing with someone isn't an argument. It's just a disagreement.
but the dictionary definition specifically states "oral disagreement" implying two people in verbal opposition, thus your point is mute.

>but that's not at all an argument
That is your opinion, for which you have provided no evidence, while I have referenced an online dictionary.

>Arguments are processes of reasoning, but not all processes of reasoning are arguments.

note

>>a process of reasoning
>>a

A process of reasoning, no claim that an argument is a description of all processes of reasoning. It's basic comprehension, nothing more.

[sage No.1945922]

>>1945917
>>1945916

lol oh no, you showed me

[Behemoth !!Twl3DmqEY/B No.1945923]

>>1945919
>your point is mute
>mute

[Zed !RW2kCRRAXg No.1945924]

>>1945710
>>1945710
>>1945710

I think Brownbear is making a very valid point, and one that is easily understandable to anyone who has even the slightest understanding of the development of Western thought-- which few here do. Allow me to elucidate:

Humor, psychologically speaking, is nothing more than an emotional ejaculation, a pleasurable release of mental tension that cannot helped but be compared to sexual issue. Those who engage in it constantly are like the chronic masturbators, and their produce can be seen in every post, as though metaphorically crusted with their dried shame.

The irony, of course, is that humor, like religion and masturbation, is a crutch of the low-born. The powerful have no need of it-- except in those instances that it may be employed to control the lower castes. However, unlike religion, which is easy enough to control, and masturbation, which can be controlled by proxy through religion, humor cannot be controlled in any effective amount-- it breeds and grows strong in the very places that power cannot exist, erects itself in inappropriate places, ejaculates itself over the very metaphysical subject upon which its existence depends, and the irony-- the irony previously alluded to-- is that when it does, as when one read posts like this one, one feels exactly like pic related.

[Truman Capote !!cO9KVBDtkqQ No.1945925]

>>1945910

This is the second time i've ever posted it, the first time was yesterday in a bb thread which similarly descended into chaos.

And say what you will of Capote but In Cold Blood will taught in every good journalism course all over the world.

[Anonymous No.1945927]

>>1945924

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1945929]

>>1945919
>implying two people in verbal opposition
Lol where does it imply that, and what does that even mean? Sorry kid, "I disagree with you" is not an argument

>That is your opinion, for which you have provided no evidence
It's a plain and simple logical fact; a discussion with differing points of view is not logically equivalent to an argument; if it were, there wouldn't be any difference and the terms would be interchangeable, but they're obviously not

>I have referenced an online dictionary.
And it's only made you look really stupid

>A process of reasoning
And that doesn't tell us anything about the whether the specific one we're concerned with in this thread is an argument, dumbass

[satan !OW9DVqIqy6 No.1945930]

>>1945924

tl;dr bitch...that is not what this thread is about

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1945931]

>>1945919
>>1945919

>thus your point is mute
>mute

[Behemoth !!Twl3DmqEY/B No.1945933]

>>1945919
>while I have referenced an online dictionary.
You do realize this is babby's first citation, right? It's just about the easiest and simplest way of making a point, and the point is not a good one because it's fallacious reasoning, using denotative definitions as arbiters of meaning is an appeal to authority.

[Zed !RW2kCRRAXg No.1945935]

>>1945927
>>1945930
Your weaksauce only makes my penis harder.

[Anonymous No.1945937]

Whilst I know BB is trolling, it's still quite interesting. There';s probably many people who feel the same about humour (how BB can claim he doesn't like humour with his trolling record is beyond me). I remember reading a very old book called improvement of the mind and it said wit was a devastating waste of time and a corruptor of the spirit, or something. Anyway, that's all I got, I guess.

Oh, maybe one more thing. Zen Masters are always cracking jokes. The universe is a pretty funny thing really.

[satan !OW9DVqIqy6 No.1945941]

>>1945931

Someone made that observation already you cocksucking teenage cunt bastard

[Anonymous No.1945943]

Then why is there so much humour in literature?

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1945944]

>>1945924
>>1945924

hi Zed

[Caracalla !!S1oOkTjvsv2 No.1945945]

>>1945862
Deeeeeeep, you can do better than that, all anon has to cite is differance, and he's got you at the jugular....

>>1945933
All semiologist worth their salt know that denotation is about twenty times the worth of any appeal to protean connotation

[Truman Capote !!cO9KVBDtkqQ No.1945948]

satan why are you always so needlessly excessive??

[Zed !RW2kCRRAXg No.1945949]

>>1945944
hi bb!

[Rangaha !KJKZ7n2h3I No.1945951]

>>1945948
compensatin'fosomething.jpg

[Anonymous No.1945952]

>>1945924
>Humor, psychologically speaking, is nothing more than an emotional ejaculation, a pleasurable release of mental tension...
This is Aristotle's definition of catharsis, and catharsis has been linked to contemplation of all the higher arts.

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1945954]

>>1945952
>>1945952

>referencing Aristotle

tell me another story about the war gramps

[satan !OW9DVqIqy6 No.1945956]

>>1945948

because i'm at work trembling with anxiety from a bunch of shitty coke i snorted half hour ago in the bathroom...this seemed like the right thread

[satan !OW9DVqIqy6 No.1945957]

>>1945951

No bro i have a really big penis

[Rangaha !KJKZ7n2h3I No.1945959]

>>1945957
justlikeerryoneon4chan

[Anonymous No.1945961]

satan, since you seem like my type of fellow, tell me where I would be able to find a nice leather couch that isnt too expensive.

[Anonymous No.1945962]

>>1945929
>a discussion with differing points of view is not logically equivalent to an argument

I never claimed it was. My claim is that a discussion with differing opinions is one of several definitions of the word argument. You may disagree with the point I am making, but again it seems that you are having a problem with basic comprehension.

>And it's only made you look really stupid
If you do not except dictionary definitions what is your frame of reference?

>And that doesn't tell us anything about the whether the specific one we're concerned with in this thread is an argument,
If you look at the initial post I specified "note 2", as this was the definition relevant to this thread. You decided to comment on each definition separately. It was only the idiocy of your comments on this definition that prompted my response.

[satan !OW9DVqIqy6 No.1945963]

>>1945959

I'd show you a picture but i don't wanna be an object of your homoerotic fantasies

[Behemoth !!Twl3DmqEY/B No.1945964]

>>1945945
>implying denotation is a fixed constant
Go check five different online dictionaries for me and look at the definitions of the term argument. First off, there will be several definitions. Second, all of these definitions will differ in wording. Surely I don't need to explain how cognitive bias comes into play here...

[Anonymous No.1945965]

>Do you see jokes in the bible?
I bet there's some humour in there somewhere.

[Anonymous No.1945968]

>Humour is not natural and should be erased from the earth.

Here's where I stopped reading. There's really no taking you seriously after that.

good luck with your next troll.

[satan !OW9DVqIqy6 No.1945973]

>>1945961
>>1945961

ROOMS TO GO HAS AN ASTOUNDING SELECTION OF LEATHER COUCHES

[Anonymous No.1945976]

wats going on heare

[Anonymous No.1945979]

>>1945973
Thanks, satan!

[Caracalla !!S1oOkTjvsv2 No.1945994]

>>1945964
Not sure you'd know your linguistics well enough to carry this argument on any further...

That they are differently worded is no problem, if I appeal to differance. Read Of Grammatology and you'll understand that because meaning is constantly deferred and thus progressive rather than constative (to a word), that leaves you not much room to cite anything along the lines of cognitive bias (as a origination of this phenomenon).

The first relies on you coming back to me with definitions that diverge in their demarcation of the meaning of the word argument (it's your education we're talking about here not mine). You'll find it tough to get anything too patent...

Based on that we could have a philosophical argument on what the concept of argument means and whether the word has been used correctly both traditionally and currently, but then I expect you to have in depth knowledge of dialectics, modal logic and the epistemic issues surrounding standard logical practice.

tl;dr Basically, I'm hundred steps ahead of you, wherever you turn and this is not a debate you want to be getting into

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1945996]

>>1945945
that doesn't have anything to do with this

>>1945962
>My claim is that a discussion with differing opinions is one of several definitions of the word argument
But that's not a claim anyone in this thread is interested in disputing, or isn't aware of, you stupid fucking moron

>If you do not except dictionary definitions what is your frame of reference?
the purpose of a lexical definition is to provide some common uses of a word. But that won't help us in analysing the concept which has been called into question in this instance.

>You decided to comment on each definition separately
Yes, because they're all woefully inadequate in explaining how the relevant material is an argument, as I've demonstrated, stupid fucking retard.

[Caracalla !!S1oOkTjvsv2 No.1945999]

>>1945996
c'mon, we're all too old for that sort of amateur assertion to be bandied around

try again, fucka

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1946003]

>>1945999
No, really. That meaning is deferred has nothing to do with anything I or who I've responded to in this thread.

[Caracalla !!S1oOkTjvsv2 No.1946009]

>>1946003
Unfortunately, your textual analysis was grounded in a specious compartmentalization of the definition, focussing on one facet (that it defined argument as something happening between two people of differing view) to the detriment of another equally important facet (that this would not be a simple conversation but a 'debate'). Meaning is consistently honed and deferred and thus my citation of differance in repeal was perfectly apposite.

[Anonymous No.1946014]

>>1945710
>claims others have feeble minds
>can't even write a couple paragraphs without glaring grammatical and semantic errors
>angsty teenagers general

[Behemoth !!Twl3DmqEY/B No.1946016]

>>1945994
>Not sure you'd know your linguistics well enough to carry this argument on any further
Nope. Sure don't. I'll bow out of this one.

[Zed !RW2kCRRAXg No.1946018]

>>1945952
Clearly, you weren't able to take in the full thrust of my post.

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1946019]

>>1946003
>>1946003
>>1946009
>>1946009

heyy caracalla and D&E whats your favourite Radiohead album and favourite Radiohead song

im going to take a guess so dont look at the spoilers okay

D&E likes The Bends because he prefers the more traditional guitar sound, with his favourite song being Just or maybe something like My Iron Lung, and AT A PUSH planet telex. With Caracalla prefering their more electronic sound so i think he's like something off of Kid A like National Anthem or maybe Everything in its Right Place

possibility D&E does not listen to Radiohead also

[Caracalla !!S1oOkTjvsv2 No.1946023]

>>1946019
Maybe In Rainbows, although I have real soft spot for Hail to the Thief. Songwise, I really like the Kid A title track and Nude.

Close but no cigar.

>>1946016
(thebiggerman.png)

[Anonymous No.1946024]

>>1945872
It is because you do not use these words correctly. When trapped you attempt to change the definitions of the words you use.

Your style of rhetoric is rather elementary and it is in poor taste.

You are, however, a master googler and plagiarist.

Are these qualities that should be respected in the 21st century?

[Anonymous No.1946026]

>brownbear

TRIPTRIPTRIPTRIPTRIPTRIPTRIPTRIPTRIPTRIPTRIPTRIPTRIPTRIPTRIP...

[Anonymous No.1946030]

>>1945996
>But that's not a claim anyone in this thread is interested in disputing, or isn't aware of

Post
>>1945815
Refers to a discussion with differing opinions as an argument.
You in post
>>1945822
Call this usage into question.

>But that won't help us in analysing the concept which has been called into question in this instance.

You called a particular usage into question. The dictionary definition directly contradicts that claim. You have provided no evidence in support of your initial claim.

>Yes, because they're all woefully inadequate in explaining how the relevant material is an argument
If you refer to my initial post I stated "note 2"

>2.a discussion involving differing points of view

which is the definition of argument that is relevant to this thread.

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1946032]

>>1946024
>>1946024

lol u little faggot go suk on your moms titties but u cnt even do that anymore bcos she wont let u and u stopped when u were 15 and thats why its even more embarrassing lol lmao you lil fag

[Anonymous No.1946045]

>>1946026
I zoned out looking at that text and it started looking like hindi or something.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1946050]

>>1946009
>textual analysis
But no-one's done any textual analysis anywhere in this thread

>focussing on one facet
Yeah, the one that's relevant, as opposed to the million others that aren't.

>another equally important facet (that this would not be a simple conversation but a 'debate')
I didn't bother with that because we'd just have to discuss how this was a debate then, and because 'argument' is not logically equivalent to 'debate' we'd just have the same questions only with a different word. Except we're talking about argument, which is not the same as debate for a number of reasons, contrary to what a dictionary thinks.

>Meaning is consistently honed and deferred and thus my citation of differance in repeal was perfectly apposite.
But no-one's said that meaning isn't deferred, I've just said that it's got nothing to do with what I've said or who I'm responding to. Which it doesn't. Maybe because meaning is deferred you feel it's appropriate to say "hurr durr meaning is deferred", no shit, but as I've said, nothing to do with me.

>When trapped you attempt to change the definitions of the words you use.
I'm not changing any definitions, I'm calling into question through highlighting incoherence and contradiction the ones that have been put forward.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1946052]

>>1946030
>You called a particular usage into question
Yes, but that has nothing to do with
>a discussion with differing opinions is one of several definitions of the word argument
No-one's denying that. What's your point?

>If you refer to my initial post I stated "note 2"
So what? they're all woefully inadequate in explaining how the relevant material is an argument

>which is the definition of argument that is relevant to this thread.
but that's not at all an argument. A muslim and a christian talking isn't automatically an argument.

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1946075]

[Anonymous No.1946079]

>>1945996
Me
>>My claim is that a discussion with differing opinions is one of several definitions of the word argument
D&E
>>But that's not a claim anyone in this thread is interested in disputing, or isn't aware of, you stupid fucking moron

But he has been disputing this claim. Look at post>>1945862
Def 2.
>a discussion involving differing points of view; debate
D&E
>but that's not at all an argument. A muslim and a christian talking isn't automatically an argument.

This guy is totally incompetent. I honestly can't see why you hold him in any regard whatsoever. You people need to start calling him on his bullshit.

[Caracalla !!S1oOkTjvsv2 No.1946087]

>>1946050
None of that is going to cut the mustard I'm afraid, particularly the 'textual analysis,' although I do admit that I was a bit stupid with the diction of 'textual' considering your blinkeredness.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1946090]

>>1946079
NO-ONE IS DISPUTING THE FACT THAT IT'S A DEFINITION OF THE FUCKING WORD. GET IT THROUGH YOUR FUCKING HEAD.

[Anonymous No.1946091]

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1946098]

"derp a derp here's a definition of cat: people who disagree i found it in a dictionary lol"

"gee anon that's not a very good definition, EVEN IF IT IS A DEFINITION, WHICH NO-ONE IS GOING TO ARGUE AGAINST"

[Anonymous No.1946105]

>>1946098
You stupid fuck! I hope you see your wife killed by a pallot of dictionaries falling on her fat head!

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1946125]

>>1946087
>I do admit that I was a bit stupid with the diction
you're more than a little stupid with diction in general

[Anonymous No.1946128]

>>1946090
People do call him out on this, but the kid evades criticism by attempting to change what the discussion is about.

Instead of continuing to support his argument he will focus on the opposing argument and try to pick it apart.

He is unable to support his own arguments due to a lack of understanding of exactly what it is he is arguing.

This is why definitions need to be explicated for him.

His criticisms will consistently evidence a fundamental lack of understanding regarding what the other is arguing.

[Anonymous No.1946131]

>>1946090
If you accept that it's an accurate definition, why did you call the usage in into question here

>>>1945822

As the poster you were questioning was only using "argument" to mean "a discussion with differing opinions"

And why did you dispute the definition when I quoted it as a dictionary definition here:

>>1945862

If you had not disputed it the argument would not have continued

[Caracalla !!S1oOkTjvsv2 No.1946137]

>>1946125
>>1946125
>dohohoho

is this wit? are you trying to patronize yourself? what sort of eight-year old are you?

[Zed !RW2kCRRAXg No.1946140]

>>1946125
>>1946087

You boys are so cute!

[Anonymous No.1946188]

>>1946131
No Response D&E?

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1946219]

>>1946128
>support his argument he will focus on the opposing argument and try to pick it apart.
my argument is that the argument this other moron is making is stupid and wrong. how am i not supporting my argument by doing that

>>1946131
>If you accept that it's an accurate definition
Of course I don't accept that it's an accurate definition, I accept that it's a definition.

>>1946131
>the poster you were questioning was only using "argument" to mean "a discussion with differing opinions"
How do you know what he meant? And how does that affect my claim that an argument is not the same thing as a discussion with differing opinions?

>why did you dispute the definition when I quoted it as a dictionary definition here:
Because an argument is not the same thing as a discussion with differning opinions, and appealing to the dictionary doesn't help us in addressing that because it's what's being called into question by me in the first place

[Anonymous No.1946251]

>>1946219

[Anonymous No.1946260]

humour can be a sign of intelligence. just not meme 4chan humour.

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1946318]

>>1946260
>>1946260

>humour
>sign of intelligence

please read the OP

[Anonymous No.1946418]

>>1946219
>how does that affect my claim that an argument is not the same thing as a discussion with differing opinions?

Your claim that an argument is not the same as a discussion with differing opinions is totally irrelevant.

What is relevant is that you criticized a specific usage of the word "argument". I called you out on it, showing that the usage was correct; the poster used the word "argument" to describe a discussion with differing opinions. This is a generally accepted meaning of the word, I have provided a dictionary source (you seem to have accepted this is one meaning of the word sporadically through the debate).

>How do you know what he meant?

HaHa Oh Wow. Well I guess this goes back to basic comprehension that you seem to be finding a little hard. Without meaning to patronize It's simply a matter of selecting the meaning of the word that fits the context of what is being said.

>appealing to the dictionary doesn't help us in addressing that because it's what's being called into question by me in the first place

No. The crux of this debate is that you called a specific usage of a word into question here>>1945822

All that is needed to prove you wrong is to show that the specific usage was correct, which is what I have done. Everything else is either obfuscation or an indication of low intellect on your part.

[Anonymous No.1946426]

>Brownbear is stupid as Hell, a pretentious troll, and probably a bad fuck.

[Anonymous No.1946431]

>>1946426
>>1946426
>implying not virgin

[Tom Harper !agc.6D4SKQ!!6S3i+JD8/EQ No.1946434]

>>1946426

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1946443]

>>1946418
>Your claim that an argument is not the same as a discussion with differing opinions is totally irrelevant.
No it's not, it's the subject of a lot of discussion in this thread. Maybe you're in the wrong thread.

>What is relevant is that you criticized a specific usage of the word "argument".
No, I criticized a specific definition of the word "argument", it's entirely different.

>It's simply a matter of selecting the meaning of the word that fits the context of what is being said.
I'll ask again, how do you know what he meant?

>The crux of this debate is that you called a specific usage of a word into question here
But I didn't do anything like that in that post

>All that is needed to prove you wrong is to show that the specific usage was correct,
But that has nothing to do with what I've been talking about in this thread. I'm not interested at all in "usage"

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1946448]

>>1946426
>>1946426

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1946453]

>>1946448

[Tom Harper !agc.6D4SKQ!!6S3i+JD8/EQ No.1946462]

[Tuan Jim !Y6d4OyAkDM No.1946472]

>>1946448
heehee

[Anonymous No.1946493]

>I am a christian


stopped reading there

[Truman Capote !!cO9KVBDtkqQ No.1946511]

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1946515]

get out of here truman that reactionimage shit was funny two posts ago but not anymore

geez who does this guy think he is

[Tom Harper !agc.6D4SKQ!!6S3i+JD8/EQ No.1946516]

>>1946511

[Truman Capote !!cO9KVBDtkqQ No.1946519]

>>1946516

[Anonymous No.1946522]

>>1946443
>it's the subject of a lot of discussion in this thread

You have been talking about it. But let me refer you back to your comment regarding the word "argument"
>>1945822

and my response

>>1945843

The crux of the discussion here is weather a specific usage of the word is correct or not. The fact that you have been talking irrelevancies for most of the discussion does not mean change the central point at stake.

>I criticized a specific definition of the word "argument", it's entirely different.

No you didn't, your initial comment was in reply to this post
>>1945815
Which is not a definition of the word argument, it is a specific usage of the word.

Later on you criticized the dictionary definition I presented, but this is only relevant in so far as it supports your initial criticism of a particular usage. My contention is that it doesn't support it at all.

>how do you know what he meant?
He used the word argument to refer to a a discussion with differing opinions, this is one of the accepted meanings of the word. Thus it what he meant was fairly obvious, which is why I called you out when you decided to stick your oar in.

>But I didn't do anything like that in that post
If I misconstrued your post then I apologize. Please explain what was meant by the post
>>1945822
if it was not to imply that the previous poster had used the word argument incorrectly.

[Anonymous No.1946524]

Laughter is like mothers milk to ignorant idiots. This is nothing new BB and telling those idiots this will make no difference. Their pathetic egos are so deeply rooted in their inability to be self-reflective that they've developed a perfect system of self-delusion that protects them from ever having to learn anything.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1946532]

>>1946522
>You have been talking about it.
Yes, with other people in the thread.

>The crux of the discussion here is weather a specific usage of the word is correct or not.
No it's not, maybe that's what you're interested in talking about but no-one other than you has displayed such an interest in this thread

>He used the word argument to refer to a a discussion with differing opinions
Where did he do that?

>Please explain what was meant by the post
It was a question over whether his parents ever fought when he was a kid. Are you fucking blind or dumb or something

[Anonymous No.1946534]

>>1946524
>Laughter is like mothers milk to ignorant idiots.

Wtf?

[Anonymous No.1946547]

>>1946534
It's a simile that's been in use for hundreds of years.

[Truman Capote !!cO9KVBDtkqQ No.1946551]

BB i agree with you but think of this in the media in general.

Again, I blame crass Americanisation.

Humour CAN be insightful and intelligent. However, more and more we find that media on TV, the radio and in newspapers which advertises itself to be informative but with 'entertainment value' inevitably compromises genuinely fascinating information for cheap jokes, when in reality when humour is properly done it can communicate information in a very effective way.

Just listen to 'The Infinite Monkey Cage' if you want to see an example of a show which degenerates it's ultimately important message for comedians to make jokes about farting and devalue everything.

[benjamin braddock No.1946554]

>2011
>still thinks God doesn't exist

[Tom Harper !agc.6D4SKQ!!6S3i+JD8/EQ No.1946555]

>>1946551
I fucking love Noel ; --- ;

[Anonymous No.1946580]

>>1946532
>Where did he do that?
>>1945815

>Yes, with other people in the thread.
OK Bro, where exactly?

>It was a question over whether his parents ever fought when he was a kid.
Fine but why did you preface the question with the greentext:-
>argument
>two people responding to each other heatedly

Honestly bro, your debating skills are nothing more than weak sophistry and obfuscation. you've been pulling the wool over peoples eyes for too long, it's time you got exposed.

[Anonymous No.1946593]

>>1946580
Your expose will be fascinating, I'm sure.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1946595]

>>1946580

>>1945815
How do you know that's how he used it?

>OK Bro, where exactly?
With people who have responded to me. See posts that are responses to my posts.

>Fine but why did you preface the question with the greentext:-
Because I was displaying my amusement at the thought, regardless whether I or anyone else expressed it, that two people arguing heatedly might be necessarily equated with an argument.

>Honestly bro, your debating skills are nothing more than weak sophistry and obfuscation. you've been pulling the wool over peoples eyes for too long, it's time you got exposed.
Yeah yeah cry more bitch nigga, heard it all before from other losers no different to you.

[Anonymous No.1946604]

>>1946595
> that two people arguing heatedly might be necessarily equated with an argument

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1946608]

>>1946604
*responding to each other

fuck, now I'm doing it

[Anonymous No.1946617]

>>1946595
You're rather pathetic and add nothing of intellectual merit to this discussion. You get off on trolling; hence you're a sadistic fag searching for that perfect masochistic fag that will make your life complete and who you can marry and live with and play pathetic schoolboy mind games with and rape each other and laugh with glee while you debate the meaning of the word 'argument.' Yuck, you're gross dude.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1946628]

>>1946617
>add nothing of intellectual merit to this discussion
>intellectual merit
You're aware of what thread you're in right?

>You get off on trolling
Where's the trolling itt?

[Anonymous No.1946629]

Now THIS is why I promised myself I'd never come here again. Thank you for reminding me.

[Anonymous No.1946635]

>159 posts and 67 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.

You have to be fucking kidding me.

[Anonymous No.1946637]

>>1946628
So you're saying you don't get off on trolling?

[sage goes in all !AmPUgxW1hE No.1946638]

oh dear god; this is what I come back to?

[Anonymous No.1946644]

>Tripfag scum
>Not naming deadpool images
>Making deadpool images macro images
Your opinions are shit and you haven't once disputed any of Brownbear's claims except with insults
You're the biggest faggot on /lit/

[Behemoth !!Twl3DmqEY/B No.1946646]

>>1946617
I keep hoping he'll wake up and realize this, I've been waiting for so long already...

[Anonymous No.1946648]

>>1946595
>regardless whether I or anyone else expressed it

Well someone had used the word in the post you were replying to, so to be honest your explanation just seems like you're grasping at straws at this point.

To put it bluntly I find your explanation unconvincing.
For anyone interested in judging for themselves the post in question:-
>>1945815
>>1945822
>>1945843

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1946652]

>>1946646

[sage goes in all !AmPUgxW1hE No.1946658]

>>1946646
You need not take him seriously, as he never intended to be serious in the first place. This how he mentally masturbates, and if you don't want it to be at your own expense, joke about it in the same way he does. That being said, a lot of what he says is entirely irrelevant, so yeah, in general he's a detriment to this board.

>>1946652
cool bro

[Behemoth !!Twl3DmqEY/B No.1946669]

>>1946652

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1946674]

>>1946648
>your explanation just seems like you're grasping at straws at this point.
What makes you think that?

>To put it bluntly I find your explanation unconvincing.
welp looks like I'll be crying myself to sleep tonight, pic related

[Behemoth !!Twl3DmqEY/B No.1946678]

>>1946658
>You need not take him seriously,
He has piecemeal portions of smart stuff. It's when he's laconic that he'll point out something that makes sense.

I just want us to dress up like schoolboys and play "I've Got a Puppy In My Van," on our anniversaries.

[sage goes in all !AmPUgxW1hE No.1946686]

>>1946678
a dream we all share

[sage No.1946718]

>>1945925

>>will taught

Okay.

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1948463]

bump