/rhet/ baby steps, attempt 1. The Origin of Bad Rhetoric

[Anonymous No.21954371]

If a person holds an intellectual position which is not able to be shown by them to be true, they are forced to engage in personal attacks (ad hominem, off topic, appeal to the audience, etc.).

Whereas,
If they held an intellectual position which was able to be shown by them to be true, they would never engage in personal attacks.

[Anonymous No.21954443]

>>21954371
Go on..

[Anonymous No.21954450]

>>21954443
>Go on..
No.

We're doing baby steps because aristotle anon has pointed out that nobody is reading my essays.

So this "first cause" is open to refutation and discussion, >>21954371

[Anonymous No.21954527]

>>21954371
>would never engage in personal attacks.
What if I'm being deliberately cruel? I call people stupid niggers and faggots on this board all the time, and not because I'm the least bit insecure in my intellectual positions, but because I have an emotional distaste for the content of their posts.

[Anonymous No.21954600]

>>21954527
>but because I have an emotional distaste for the content of their posts.
That would be Pathos (being driven by emotional impulses), but you raise a good point.

I'd say that if I were fully convinced I was right about a thing that, it would follow, that the person who was opposing the correct view of the thing would be more damaged if I were to pretend to agree with them and "send them on their way (i.e. to climb into the tiger cage and play with the tigers)" thinking they were completely correct; that is: if I had a 'genuine' disgust for the supporters of a thing (a considered them beyond reasoning with) I would fortify their errors rather than seek to refute and correct their errors (if they had demonstrated they weren't interested in being corrected).

I'm thinking more in terms of conflict over this or that, where and when a person cannot refute but dislikes implication of (whatever they cab't refute) being true. In Pathos we'd recognize that as being the "forced into a corner" position where the person, from intellectual failings, cannot accept they were in error (because they cannot articulate a case drawn from logic if they do hold a position that is in error) and become berserk instead; having become subsumed by Pathos and unable to contorl themselves to act in their own best interests to avoid the consequences of what they do next, (e.g. zealot of faith proclaims peace and love, then flies into a violent temper and makes his faith seem false-bad-useless-inferior by his actions).

>What if I'm being deliberately cruel? I call people stupid niggers and faggots on this board all the time
Probably you're just frustrated by experience of having tried to reason with them and have discovered they are not capable of discussing (whatever) in a logical manner; unwilling/unable to recognize proofs, dishonest, etc. That's not really Pathos, in that instance, as it wouldn't be 'emotional' distaste but 'intellectual (or moral)' distaste for their conduct.


Actually a very good question.

[Anonymous No.21954625]

>>21954371

Ad Hominem is fine if it relates to the argument.
Slippery slope is real.
Prescribing to the "fallacies" without thinking about them yourself is the greatest fallacy of all.

[Anonymous No.21954660]

>>21954625
I won't make your case for you, anon, you need to demonstrate a scenario where,
>Ad Hominem is fine if it relates to the argument.

It would automatically be 'off-topic', as, e.g. Dr Adams is wearing a pair of shoes unlike my own (ad hom) has no bearing on whether Dr Adams is correct or incorrect in his hypothesis regarding his case.

I can think of a couple of exceptions for this that would demonstrate what you say as perhaps entirely valid in specific scenarios, but I won't make your case for you.

[Anonymous No.21954668]

>>21954660

A guru says that one must eat a vegetarian diet.
This guru is fat.
I, someone who isn't full of shit, tell him that I won't take diet advice from a guy that's out of shape.

[Anonymous No.21954693]

>>21954371
> If they held an intellectual position which was able to be shown by them to be true, they would never engage in personal attacks.
Not true.
I can prove that my point is right, and yours is wrong, and then immediately call you a dumb faggot.
Not every offense is an ad hominem. Some offenses are not trying to engage in the arguments, they’re just there as a complement after (or before) the actual argument.

[Anonymous No.21954782]

>>21954693
No, no, if you 'are' able to prove you're correct in a thing then and add a funny joke at the end of it, then that's entirely different; we're talking about those who are unable/unwilling to make a case (or refute another case) in the first place.

>>21954668
> (I) tell him that I won't take diet advice from a guy that's out of shape.
Yep, that could work; demonstrating an incongruity in an espoused position vs. the position in reality: your pejorative, in that instance, is calling out a hypocrisy and an incongruity which is logically correct - and 'on-topic'. The (defendant) can still make a case from that position, of course, e.g. "yes I am fat, I know from experience why over-eating mcmuffins is bad, you should learn from my example, look at my diabetes," and you would discuss the thing and reach a mutual resolution on it. But beginning and ending only with a pejorative, even if it's valid, would not be correct 'without' presenting the logic; the proof, at the same time.

[Anonymous No.21954793]

>>21954600
See you're no longer talking about universals, you're talking about specifics. Your personal value system that defines how you predict you would react, in a vacuum. Not exactly a useful subject.
For there to be an attempt at a universal answer to the question of rhetoric you would first need to define a universal goal for rhetoric. Starting with a value judgment is just unsound.

[Anonymous No.21954813]

>>21954793
>See you're no longer talking about universals, you're talking about specifics.
Yes, I am a low-brow materialist who is concerned with what humans actually do, not what they 'believe' they're doing (to pernicious consequence) as if they exist in a vacuum unconnected to anything.

>Your personal value system that defines how you predict you would react, in a vacuum.
hm. Are we agreeing with each other on this point?

Expound upon what you mean by this.

[Anonymous No.21954866]

>>21954371
Maybe they have already dealt with your exact type of reply before and are too tired to repeat what they have already thought so they just reply that they are dumb.
Maybe they are just tired of the argument so they go off topic because they know, even though they are right, an argument might spin out of control and go for hours (consider the case of trying to prove to a schizo that doesn't believe in calculus that 2x is the derivative of x^2)
Appealing to the audience might be used regardless of correctness and incorrectness if the audience doubles as a judge and you don't want someone with false ideas but with an ability to appeal to overtake the truth

[Anonymous No.21954871]

>>21954813
>Expound
Not him but the fact that you use unneeded pretentious words is a sophistic appeal to audience (like wearing fake glasses to a debate)

[Anonymous No.21954888]

>>21954813
You're a sophist. Your OP used universal language but you're just talking about your personal values.

[Anonymous No.21954912]

>>21954625
>Prescribing to the "fallacies" without thinking about them yourself is the greatest fallacy of all.
This. Debates aren’t a game of golf where you make your argument while racking up as little fallacy points as possible.

[Anonymous No.21954986]

Not necessarily, for if my intellectual position is entwined with value judgments as many if not almost all are, then the recognition of it's truthfullness also plainly rests upon the character of those who hear it. To put forth an example; if I converse with someone who either utterly lacks courage or had and has a great time with his role in society and therefore reacts to almost all social norms with apsolute conformity and acceptance, then the person will always diverge from me if I propose a position that implies a negative value on the thing which he conciously or subconciously value, in this case society. The best we can hope then, if we have enough time, is to descend further down to more base constituent parts until we find the most fundemental disagreement we can reach. But alas, easier said then done. Its much simpler to call out the man based on what seems to be his character flaw.

[Anonymous No.21955005]

>>21954371
>If they held an intellectual position which was able to be shown by them to be true, they would never engage in personal attacks.
This isn't quite accurate. When you're arguing with an idiot, at a certain point, you realize that no matter how good your argument is, they aren't going to understand it, and there aren't many options left but to tell them they're infants. this is the position I found myself in quite often when I used to discuss politics on plebbit
the problem is, there's no surefire way of knowing whether your argument is correct and the other person's an idiot, or whether your argument just isn't that good.

[Anonymous No.21955047]

>>21954871
>the fact that you use unneeded pretentious words

>>21954912
>a game of golf where you make your argument while racking up as little fallacy points
I'm not going to waste half an hour explaining to you what a fallacy is, anymore than I'd waste half an hour explaining that literate Men use the words in the order they mean in order to convey absolute precision.

Fucking hell, we're devolving into off-topic. What happened.


>>21954866
>Maybe they have already dealt with
If so, then it should be really easy for them to explain themselves with logic and make cases and refute the people they're abusing, if that were the case.

I see no evidence to suggest that your scenario is true (e.g. the newspaper libels, defamation of character for political biases, the culture of anonymous trolling, centuries of wrong academic defamation against the discoverers of things, etc.) why would would anyone 'presume' that the people engaging in that behavior are all in the right, when those people (their thought process; their behavior) are always shown to have been not simply 'in error' (in good faith) but consciously lying with intent to defame.


>>21954888
>You're a sophist. Your OP used universal language but you're just talking about your personal values
My personal values have nothing to do with a man being objectively in error and this error being observable as a fact we can work on (e.g. he declares he is growing cabbage and shows me his 'cabbage tree'; he is wrong in this this and this) .. what are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.21955063]

This is a good point.

>>21955005
>the problem is, there's no surefire way of knowing whether your argument is correct and the other person's an idiot,

Obviously then it would come back to being able to prove and demonstrate what you say, i.e. to "make a case," so that you would know you were right, and be able to convey the thing to others who were interested in the truth of the matter, even if you were dealing with a dishonest person who was shouting you down.

I thnk the 'object' of our interest defines that part; if we're itnerested in personal pride - social status whatever - then we have no regard for the truth of the thing, it does't matter at all. But if we're actually interested in discovering how XYZ operates so we can do something with XYZ in the real world, then we're interested only in truth an are happy to be corrected rather than angry to be corrected.

The social status shouldn't matter here on an anonymous forum but.. even here.. lol

Good comment.

[Anonymous No.21955076]

>>21954986
> then the recognition of it's truthfullness also plainly rests upon the character of those who hear it.

This is also a good comment, I kind of hit the same conclusion as you did, here: >>21955063
>I thnk the 'object' of our interest defines that part; if we're itnerested in personal pride - social status whatever - then we have no regard for the truth of the thing, it does't matter at all. But if we're actually interested in discovering how XYZ operates so we can do something with XYZ in the real world, then we're interested only in truth an are happy to be corrected rather than angry to be corrected.

My only disagreement is that any of this is a 'personal/value' on the part of the person making a case: >>21955047
>personal values have nothing to do with a man being objectively in error and this error being observable as a fact we can work on (e.g. he declares he is growing cabbage and shows me his 'cabbage tree'; he is wrong in this this and this

[Anonymous No.21955115]

I'll bbl
OP

[Anonymous No.21955124]

>>21954371
>if they held an intellectual position which was able to be shown by them to be true, they would never engage in personal attacks.
This is completely retarded and you should kill yourself for producing such an imbecilic and reductive maxim.

A better distinction is that people resort to personal attacks when they are unable to successfully prove their position to their interlocutor. That can be either if they're unable to prove the position at all, or if the other person is too stupid or stubborn to accept their proof. Different people will have different tolerances for this, and this website has degenerated to the point where people lead with personal attacks even in their initial posts, simply because they assume the worst of the person to whom they're replying. Plenty of those posters are idiots themselves with poorly thought out positions, but it's not exceptionally rare to see people immediately shit on somebody while giving a strong and coherent argument.

Also (particularly on the internet) there's a very strong element of toxicity which makes people behave rudely simply for their own amusement/satisfaction. Like what I did here to prove a point. It generally reduces the quality of the discourse, but still shouldn't be ignored if you're making a purely descriptive analysis.

[Anonymous No.21955146]

>>21954782

I agree, some people are just worth styling on though, as long as the logic is implied.

[Anonymous No.21955164]

>>21954668
Rather than "you're fat", a trap like:
>you are sure that a vegetarian diet is THE diet for optimal health?
>yes
>do you follow the vegetarian diet?
>yes
Is much better, and only a loophole like "I have thyroid issues" can save him (well, it may present you another point - if the diet has correlation with thyroid health, and it's that good, he wouldn't have thyroid issues)

[Anonymous No.21955185]

>>21955124
>A better distinction is that people resort to personal attacks when they are unable to successfully prove their position to their interlocutor.
To be more precise, it's when they *believe* they will be unable to successfully prove their position.
>If I don't believe I can demonstrate something to you because I believe that I don't have the capacity to prove it, then I will possibly resort to personal attacks.
>If I don't believe I can demonstrate something to you because I believe you are too ignorant to ever accept my position, then I will possibly resort to personal attacks.
Also:
>If I want to be mean to someone over the internet, then I will possibly resort to personal attacks
The use of personal attacks doesn't imply that a specific option is true in a given case, although (in a limited sense, since that list isn't really exhaustive) it does prove that one of those three options is true.

[Anonymous No.21955262]

>>21955063
>Obviously then it would come back to being able to prove and demonstrate what you say, i.e. to "make a case," so that you would know you were right
unfortunately, being able to make a strong case for something doesn't mean I'm right. There have been issues where I had a strong argument that stood up to scrutiny across many debates, and I was reasonably confident I was correct. But then I had a discussion with someone who was intelligent but disagreed with me, and pointed out a flaw in my argument (often an unstated or poor assumption) that made me reevaluate my entire position. Usually, my overall opinion didn't change and I just had to rework the argument a bit, but there have been times where my opinion flipped or where I had to accept that my argument was based on a particular value-assessment (which I consider to be the "axioms" of political and moral discussions -- things you hold to be inherently true but that you can't prove or convince someone of if they don't hold them).
with a mathematical proof, you are arguing formal logic. you might omit certain obvious details, but once proven, barring a logical flaw in the proof, it is inarguably true. but societal-level concepts are generally speaking not things that can be proven except by informal proof, and thus the result cannot be considered "absolute truth" in the way that "the square root of 2 is not a rational number" is absolute truth. consequently, finding flaws in the proof are much more difficult, because by the nature of informal logic, there will be many flaws of varying degrees of importance -- but some are gaps that no rational person would dispute, whereas others are actual problems for the argument that make it not convincing.
by not having found any problems in the argument, that doesn't mean the argument is correct; it just means you haven't noticed any problems /yet/. I think the best way to find such flaws is to have a good faith discussion with someone you consider intelligent and well-informed but who disagrees with you. (you can also test your argument's validity by playing devil's advocate against yourself, which is a useful exercise in and of itself.) I don't think there is any way to know for certain that your argument has no non-trivial flaws, but you can both improve your own argument and become more confident in its correctness by having many discussions with such people.
this is part of why I used to get into debates on plebbit. but I realized in time that having arguments with idiots is a fool's errand, both because you're unlikely to discover any flaws in your own argument in the process, and you're virtually guaranteed to not change their mind.

[Anonymous No.21955306]

>>21954371
I’m supposed to be reading this soon. Is it good?

[Anonymous No.21955615]

2015 redditor thread.

[Anonymous No.21955929]

>>21955124
>A better distinction is that people resort to personal attacks when they are unable to successfully prove their position to their interlocutor.
That is a more much correct why to describe it, yes. I agree.

But here,
> That can be either if they're unable to prove the position at all, or if the other person is too stupid or stubborn to accept their proof.

My point; of intellectual honesty of the self, would be that if I was arguing a thing I could not prove that I would have no rational reason to be holding that position in the first place. I would not understand in my own mind in order to be articulate a case because there would 'be' no case; there could not be a winning case to be made for, for example, the manner in which a rabbit is at the same time an aircraft carrier. By the same sense; the accurate case to be made to describe a tree is a clear verbatim description of that tree; one cannot do this is what they are describing does not exist.

If that is correct as to why 'some people' are found to be unwilling and unable to present a case or refute the cases of others then it reveals that they are well aware they're in error and are lying; subsequently anything they say is going to avoid the logic (i.e. the sequence of events, the clear description of a thing) which would display the absurdism of their position or claim (e.g. they begin to describe how a rabbit could be an aircraft carrier), as their position or claim would have nothing to draw from in reality to have a case be made for it, and a clear articulation of reality in a straight-forward case (i.e. if they discussed the thing) would reveal this.

But,
Whether or not they're stupid or lying doesn't matter, I think, as we can dismiss a person like this for having recognized that they themselves have no rational reason to think/do as they think/do, and that they are not holding that belief from a rational basis in the first place... hence their diversions into (off-topic, attack, etc.) can be considered, with good evidence of their mental state, as to be a proof that they are 1) consciously in the wrong in their claims, 2) engaging in deception to steer the horse off the straight path of logic, which would lead the discussion to revealing their error.

[Anonymous No.21955937]

>one cannot do this is what they are describing does not exist.
one cannot do this if* what they are describing does not exist. ;p

[Anonymous No.21955948]

>>21955124
>>21955185
>To be more precise, it's when they *believe* they will be unable to successfully prove their position.

>If I don't believe I can demonstrate something to you because I believe that I don't have the capacity to prove it, then I will possibly resort to personal attacks.
>If I don't believe I can demonstrate something to you because I believe you are too ignorant to ever accept my position, then I will possibly resort to personal attacks.

The latter option... I jsut don't see a basis for it; I mean that a person who 'is' stupid and believe they have unspeakable wisdom and that 'others' ae too stupid to understand so they don't bother to speak ... this falls into the same causation as with the former, i.e. both produce the same results for as as both constitute the same proofs of that persons disposition, as I said here: >>21955929
>I would not understand in my own mind in order to be articulate a case because there would 'be' no case;

just wanted to add this.

[Anonymous No.21956031]

>>21955262
>unfortunately, being able to make a strong case for something doesn't mean I'm right.

See previous: >>21955929

>you might omit certain obvious details, but once proven, barring a logical flaw in the proof, it is inarguably true. but societal-level concepts are generally speaking not things that can be proven

We get, sometimes, into demarcation of proofs. I don't want to give a lazy answer but I think this is an over-complication that people hold to in error which can be demonstrated not to apply in reality; e.g. if it's proven then it is inarguably true: e.g. if Dr Adams was proven to have murdered somebody or cheated on his taxes then it has been proven that he did it and he's going to prison. He can argue against the case if he can draw from evidence to refute the case; that is: he can argue the case is in error and he will win if he's correct, i.e. if he can prove it.

For a value-assessment,
Why should we have lesser standards than "this thing has been proven either inarguably true or not" when we leave a court room? Being absolutely sure of what you're doing at all times is more important than those few hours in a persons life where they've done something foolish (as consequence of something else that was foolish) and end up before a magistrate, for instance.

I just don't buy the basis for arguments (where a person is shown to be in error) who replies to the case by questioning the nature of "absolute truth" because I think of the same statement being made in a court of law, and how it would be received, etc., and also knowing that few people, in a serious situation as that, would insult the intelligence of the court by making a statement like that - as there would be immediate consequences which they would be fully aware of.

e.g.
>this is part of why I used to get into debates on plebbit. but I realized in time that having arguments with idiots is a fool's errand,
>you're virtually guaranteed to not change their mind.

In a serious situation like in a court they would not say such things, in a non-serious situation like in a political debate they will say such things all day long lol

My 'argument' in this topic isn't that we ought be setting out to convince such people at all, for all the reasons you explained, but that 'we' who know better ought actually understand that we shouldn't pay any mind to what such people ever have to say; as we can prove they're in error (be it over something serious or not) by the way they respond 'if' they seek to divert the thread.

[Anonymous No.21956080]

>>21955929
This is a word salad and poorly articulated, so forgive me if I misunderstand something.

People can rationally hold a belief without being able to argue for its truthfulness, i.e. believing in a scientific fact because it's easier to defer to experts than spend hours researching the subject for yourself. If such a person were to argue with someone denying the fact, then they wouldn't be able to give any argument but would probably still be certain that they are correct. (This is a massive can of worms to open, especially with the whole "trust the experts!!1!" stuff, but I still think it's rational for people to behave this way out of pure convenience). This also extends to the truthfulness of anecdotal evidence, i.e. if I claim that my mom died yesterday and you say I'm lying. I might not be able to argue my position to you (or be willing to since it would compromise my privacy), but I will still know for certain that I'm correct.

This also becomes an issue since some people will resolutely refuse to accept truthful and accurate pieces of information because they themselves are irrational. If you have any experience on 4chan you will have encountered such fellows, like that one guy who insists tank divisions aren't real, the Battle of Stalingrad never happened, the US Civil War was faked, and will under no circumstances offer any concessions or coherent reasoning beyond re-stating his initial position, even when people bother to construct detailed and accurate arguments disproving his claims, so they just call him a schizo and move on.

>>21955948
>I would not understand in my own mind in order to be articulate a case because there would 'be' no case
there would be no case that the other person could understand*
If you have exhausted all of your arguments, and a person still isn't convinced, then you still will possibly believe that you're correct. Whether someone else accepts your argument says nothing about its validity.

If you assume everyone is perfectly rational, then your argument holds. Although if everyone were perfectly rational then there probably would be no purpose for misleading rhetoric, or rhetoric in general. Of course, people are not perfectly rational and will personally attack others simply out of frustration at being unable to 'win' an argument, or appeal to irrational sources of evidence, like consensus, which can often be better suited to convincing irrational people.

[Anonymous No.21956081]

>>21955306
Haven't read. I'd start with Marcus Fabius Quintilian "the good man speaking well" and Chrysippus's logic (deduction and discerning proofs to be correct about a thing) as "the dialectic of the gods," ... also Marcus Valerius Martialis.

I spent quite a few years, off and on, pawing over writers on rhetoric from byzantine courts and the greeks and the romans. Honestly Quintilian is the best, and what survives of Chrysippus is infinitely superior to the books that didn't get set on fire.

I'm exaggerating a bit, there are others from the old world who are very good, but those three are the most actionable to get a grasp of what e.g. "the imperial academy that educated hadrian and trajan" was teaching, what the first roman stoics were thinking about when they learned stoicism from chrysippus, and tidbit cases and funny moral attacks, of course, from the flavian era via martial.

[Anonymous No.21956181]

>>21956080
>People can rationally hold a belief without being able to argue for its truthfulness, i.e. believing in a scientific fact because it's easier to defer to experts than spend hours researching the subject for yourself.
Not true at all; if you defer to a third party to instruct you then you're operating in ignorance as to whether you're doing the thing correctly or not. This is why we understand implicitly that people who try to shutdown discussion of things are doing so because they're afraid of the conclusions that would be reached.

So, no, I strongly disagree with this part,
>People can rationally hold a belief without being able to argue for it

> (This is a massive can of worms to open, especially with the whole "trust the experts!!1!" stuff,
Exactly, so it can't be your premise lol

>but I still think it's rational for people to behave this way out of pure convenience
Sure, but it's still the same problem; they don't know why they do what they do and their not-knowing is where atrocities and great errors come from, in aggregate.

> i.e. if I claim that my mom died yesterday and you say I'm lying. I might not be able to argue my position to you (or be willing to since it would compromise my privacy), but I will still know for certain that I'm correct.
That's a fair point but it's a matter of proof for 'you' i.e. you know for sure, because you have the proofs, that XYZ occurred - it would be a matter of personal trust to take you at your word for the other person.

>This also becomes an issue since some people will resolutely refuse to accept truthful and accurate pieces of information
I don't know whether they couldn't ever be convinced, see the court room scenario in the prior post as to the conditions which enable them to do that. Then again, they might be right :o - perform a value judgement; does it matter / what is the importance of the claim, what could the claim support s a foundation, etc. check for biases* ... I find 'most' absurdist claims; sustained denial of evidence of things, stems from an ulterior bias in some way or another, as to why tackling things head on don't work on those occasions.

>there would be no case that the other person could understand*
No there is a difference there; if (as i described in the last post) is the only 100% method to convey a thing in language to another person, then if you can't do this it's a failing on your own part (which you can improve upon)for being unable to convey it, 'before' it's a matter of them not understanding; the impetus is in 'you', I mean, to present your case. Shrugging and proclaiming that others can't ever understand could be a position adopted by someone super smart as well as someone super stupid, but the remedy is the same in either case: it's a failure of (your/my) own powers of speech and reason if we haven't found the means to unlock that persons head, e.g. the cause of what they say isn't for the reasoning they express but for some ulterior bias instead.

[Anonymous No.21956239]

>>21956181
>I don't know whether they couldn't ever be convinced, see the court room scenario in the prior post as to the conditions which enable them to do that. Then again, they might be right :o - perform a value judgement; does it matter / what is the importance of the claim, what could the claim support s a foundation, etc. check for biases* ... I find 'most' absurdist claims; sustained denial of evidence of things, stems from an ulterior bias in some way or another, as to why tackling things head on don't work on those occasions.
If you've argued with some of those people for long enough the you'll know that there is most likely nothing you can say over this medium to convince them. It would probably require you to be their therapist for a few years, since their beliefs are often tied to mental illness (whether schizophrenia or narcissism) and/or their biases are not strictly biases per se but rather a dogmatism which matches the most ardent of religious believers. Arguing with them under the belief that you can at some point convince them is like trying to dig a tunnel by smashing your head against a wall. In theory it might work eventually, but no sane person would go to such an extent (and plenty of sane people would be frustrated and resort to personally attacking the reality-denying moron, even if it's theoretically a failure of their rhetorical abilities).

So maybe in an ideal world you have a point, but if you mean this to a be a description of how people argue then it simply falls short of reality.

>Not true at all; if you defer to a third party to instruct you then you're operating in ignorance as to whether you're doing the thing correctly or not. This is why we understand implicitly that people who try to shutdown discussion of things are doing so because they're afraid of the conclusions that would be reached.
I don't disagree, and I don't argue points which I can't argue. I'm mainly responding to your claim here >>21955929 ("we can dismiss a person like this for having recognized that they themselves have no rational reason to think/do as they think/do") My point is less that it's rational to argue like this, and more that there is a relevant distinction between people conceding that they can't argue something effectively and accepting that their position is wrong.

[Anonymous No.21956257]

>>21956239
>accepting that their position is wrong.
sorry, accepting that they have no rational reason to believe what they do.
The distinction being that people might have rational reasons for believing in something that they can't prove, or at least have not recognized they have no rational reasons for believing in it.

[Anonymous No.21956321]

>>21956239
>and/or their biases are not strictly biases per se but rather a dogmatism which matches the most ardent of religious believers.
This is what I was getting at with the ulterior-biases (I'm phrasing that badly), I mean, that, e.g.: a person gives a vocal endorsement of the merits of XYZ position, the person gies that vocal endorsement - arguing nominally for XYZ - because they believe that XYZ will involve UVW (UVWXYZ), so they laugh when you refute XYZ because they don't care in the least bit about what they're saying; in that instance then, to refute them, you figure out the UVW, i.e. what their ulterior motive is for arguing for XYZ.

I don't mean some malicious thing either, it may be perfectly nice; e.g. "we must proclaim that Dr Adams is a monster because we need to achieve precedent to get something peripherally related to Dr Adams put into law," so proving to them that Dr Adams is a normal man will not only not move them to apologise but will be angrily resisted by them (in the ways described in this thread) because of their unspoken true motive being in that ulterior thing.

>Arguing with them under the belief that you can at some point convince them is like trying to dig a tunnel by smashing your head against a wall.
I do agree with you obviously in practice, I'm not trying to convince anybody, as I said, to waste their time on things like that but to recognize people like that as being, generally speaking, "advertising that they're in the wrong" but their initial remarks.

But, it's worth recalling one of Quintilians maxims,
"let us convince even one such as this (even the most depraved, or stupid)," as the effort will pay off in our overall powers of reasoning.......... so as we understand what we're doing. You're quite right, to engage with a person like that is a mental strain but it's very good practice, "like atheletes with lead weights" as he says.

>>21956257
>at least have not recognized they have no rational reasons for believing in it.
Sure, ut the conclusion is still the same; to make the recognition on 'our' part (i.e. of the self) that such people do not know in and of themselves why they're doing what they do.

I'd reckon it'd be as I said though, it would turn out to be some hidden ulterior bias, and that getting at that would be the solution. Since .. people don't just wake up and speak nonsense suddenly with no reason at all, there're causes for everything.

[Anonymous No.21956325]

>but to recognize people like that as being, generally speaking, "advertising that they're in the wrong" but their initial remarks.
but to recognize people like that as being, generally speaking, "advertising that they're in the wrong" by* their initial remarks.

[Anonymous No.21956365]

>>21956031
>I think this is an over-complication that people hold to in error which can be demonstrated not to apply in reality
I'm not referring to the type of scenario you're talking about. I'm talking about complex issues across an entire society rather than a murder case. The question of, for example, what caused the collapse of the western Roman empire, is much more complicated than the question of who killed Julius Caesar. The difference isn't only in the difficulty of proving the answer; the difficulty is also that there really /is/ no correct answer. There are literally hundreds of reasons that the Roman empire collapsed in the west. Some answers are strictly incorrect -- eg "because many Roman citizens wanted to unite with China to form a new empire" -- and some inarguably are a part of the reason -- eg "because of barbarian invasions" -- but there is no provably correct answer for the exact reasons why, what percent effect each had, etc. And this isn't only a problem because it was hundreds of years ago and we don't have good enough records. Even if it happened yesterday, there's no way to say exactly why it happened.
A more modern example would be trying to analyze why Trump won the election in 2016. The only provably correct answers are that the electoral college gave more votes to Trump than to Hillary, and that Trump did well enough in enough state elections that the electoral college gave him the vote. But that's not the answer anyone wants to know. They want to know /why/ he won, like, "a good portion of the country was fed up with liberal identity politics", or something like that. But the answer to that question is multi-faceted, and while you can make an argument for what the most important things that caused him to be elected were, there are as many different reasons for Trump getting elected as there are voters in the US.
>Why should we have lesser standards than "this thing has been proven either inarguably true or not"
Because there are things that aren't a matter of truth or not. Many of my debates focus on what "should" be done, which is a value assessment. Since different people value different things, the most you can hope to prove is "if you value A, the best way to achieve that is through B" -- but again, "the best way" is not something that can be proven in the real world. Even if data shows that B has been more effective than C at achieving A, unless the situation is literally identical to the context the data was collected in, it's possible that the situations are different enough that C really is more effective than B in this particular case.
>questioning the nature of "absolute truth"
That's not at all what I was getting at. The court of law deals with hard facts and how they relate to law. Most debates outside the court room deal with conjecture rather than facts (based on them, sure, but not themselves facts), and value assessments rather than law.

[Anonymous No.21956397]

>>21956321
>to refute them, you figure out the UVW, i.e. what their ulterior motive is for arguing for XYZ.
A problem is when UVW is something very personal, i.e. he's a narcissist who believes he's the smartest person on the planet and is never wrong about anything. To refute UVW you would then call him a narcissist, which he would probably take as a personal insult and then respond in kind, still completely convinced that he's the smartest person on the planet and absolutely correct about XYZ. Although this probably falls under your later point.

>I do agree with you obviously in practice, I'm not trying to convince anybody, as I said, to waste their time on things like that but to recognize people like that as being, generally speaking, "advertising that they're in the wrong" but their initial remarks.
My issue is that if you use personal attacks as a metric for deciding whether someone is arguing in good faith, you will naturally include otherwise good faith posters who are merely frustrated by another's stupidity (or imagined stupidity). This is particularly important if you yourself are not arguing well; someone might be annoyed that you failed to address one of their key points, assume you aren't worth their time, and then call you an idiot. It doesn't mean that you should assume they know they have no rational reason to believe something or are completely ignorant of something; they just might assume that you can't be reasoned with.

>Sure, ut the conclusion is still the same; to make the recognition on 'our' part (i.e. of the self) that such people do not know in and of themselves why they're doing what they do.
True. My issue is more about misunderstandings, like if both parties mistakenly believe that the other party is completely incorrigible and can't be reasoned with. I would also note that just someone who makes that judgment of you might themselves be rational and capable of debate, unless you argued perfectly which is a rather dangerous assumption to make, or made a mistake in inferring some UVW cause and in seeking to address the root issue appeared utterly irrational and antagonistic. Thus it might still make sense to assume they're arguing in good faith even if they do resort to personal attacks (especially since, if they are arguing in good faith, then they'll probably still be willing to address a rational argument)

Again, none of this is an issue if people are perfect, but that's a poor assumption to make when arguing—even of yourself.

[× I V R I V S × !!GgBWHLRiayD No.21956537]

Bad rhetoric from fallacious rationale; irrationality/craziness begins where spurious rationality ends.

[Anonymous No.21956911]

>>21956397
>A problem is when UVW is something very personal, i.e. he's a narcissist
I get that but that's a bad example; it' more the case that if you figured out the "UVW" that you'd find that suddenly your logic of proofs was having more effect on the person as suddenly you were addressing the 'real' thing that was motivating them to speak ... haha but just as easily this could make them more angry for being "found out" ... but then they'd be holding a dishonest position; their reaction would tell you that, if they were ashamed or afraid to have been found out.

>My issue is that if you use personal attacks as a metric for deciding whether someone is arguing in good faith,
There can be exceptions, perhaps, but it fits as a very effective method of discernment, as we've been discussing here:

It boils to the interest or object of the other person; or of the self in their shoes, as was mentioned earlier: >>21955063
>I thnk the 'object' of our interest defines that part;

If a person is genuinely interested in figuring out (whatever) then the truth of the thing is all that matters to them, so they won't engage in the same behavior as a person who is acting under some ulterior bias and isn't interested of the truth of that thing but is driven by something else instead.

But, yes,
>or made a mistake in inferring some UVW cause and in seeking to address the root issue appeared utterly irrational and antagonistic.
whilst that is true .. if they were being dishonest they would react in the same way, so it really comes to this assumption:

>Thus it might still make sense to assume they're arguing in good faith even if

Why would it make sense to assume honesty - on the part of a person had not been interested in presenting a case in the first place? So many examples of huge things show to us that people who refuse discussion and jump instead to verbal abuse are consciously lying, so it doesn't make sense to presume they're sincerely 'very upset' with you lol .... not to drag Pathos into this again (although it does fit) but if you're suggesting that a sincere emotional outburst of frustration should result in a more favorable supposition (i.e. to consider them to be offended) then ... that's Pathos; unthinking emotional reactivism - the unconscious state of a person who isn't in control of themselves in the first place.

I guess I just don't think it's worth it to shield a highly probable liar with malintent under the off-chance that the highly probable liar might just be a sincerely upset idiot.

[Anonymous No.21956952]

>>21956365
>A more modern example would be trying to analyze why
I nearly went with an example like that, it is better than the one I used lol

Okay, even better then: UVW,

A leftist operate under the presumption that a rightist is voting for Trump because Trump sassed (random politician), they explain how bad this was to the rightist, presenting a case, but the rightist doesn't care about this and laughs, because that isn't the reason that the rightist is voting for Trump; the rightist is voting for Trump because of some small policy in Trumps election promises, and the leftist doesn't mention this at all (actually the leftist is academic and has a presupposition that the rightist could never comprehend such a thing as a policy and the rigtist 'must' be impressed by the sassmouthing instead).

>The difference isn't only in the difficulty of proving the answer; the difficulty is also that there really /is/ no correct answer. There are literally hundreds of reasons
That's true as well, but it doesn't fit with the court scenario; there may well be hundreds of causes occurring, but we 'can' discern culpability of this cause or that cause as to its origin, ... in order to arrive at 2% of the total answer. I'm just saying it's not impossible, even in massive cases like that.

I got to go though - hopefully the threads still here tomorrow

[Anonymous No.21956971]

>>21956397
ed. just to add..
>I guess I just don't think it's worth it to shield a highly probable liar with malintent under the off-chance that the highly probable liar might just be a sincerely upset idiot.
And even then; if the idiot is hitting you with libel and false accusations then there's no reason whatsoever you shouldn't treat them with the same severity as the person who was doing the same thing because of a "hidden motive", the effect of their decision to be hostile has the same effect no manner what motivates them.

[Anonymous No.21957022]

Rhetoric only works when your opponent or the person intended to receive your arguments is of an equal intellectual calibre and won't become a raging hypocrite when you point out errors in their ways of thinking, which unfortunately makes it a largely useless skill in today's society.

[Anonymous No.21957025]

>>21956911
>I guess I just don't think it's worth it to shield a highly probable liar with malintent under the off-chance that the highly probable liar might just be a sincerely upset idiot.
On the internet there are plenty of people who will be rude for the sake of being rude, or use very thin excuses to be rude. If you discount all of those people then you are drastically limiting the pool of acceptable posters with whom you can actually engage. Plenty of people will be vulgar or emotional and yet you can still benefit from conversing with them, at least to a point, since they might still be debating honestly and be capable of rational argument if you look past the outbursts. It also usually isn't too hard to judge whether a person is completely unreasonable/dishonest within a few posts, since if you respond politely they will either tone down their attacks and engage honestly (perhaps with a "NTA" post), ignore you, or continue the attacks. In the final case then obviously it's obviously quite safe to assume that such a person is either incurably rude or dishonest.

I suspect that on 4chan, or at least /lit/, the people who consciously seek to hide their lack of an argument with personal attacks are relatively few when compared to the people who are just immature or rude. In different forums that will be completely different; if we were talking about a presidential debate, for instance, then I would absolutely infer that the candidate resorting to insults is masking their underlying lack of substance. It's just a matter of what the expected ratio of dishonest to immature is in a given population.

>>21956971
>if the idiot is hitting you with libel and false accusations then there's no reason whatsoever you shouldn't treat them with the same severity as the person who was doing the same thing because of a "hidden motive", the effect of their decision to be hostile has the same effect no manner what motivates them.
You're thinking strictly of one argument/post at a time, which doesn't make sense in this context. One post motivates another person to post, which in turn leads to a back-and-forth exchange, the sum of which is the entire debate. Their acting rudely in one post might have the same affect on your next post, but the effect that your next post has on their next post *will* be dependent on their character and motives. If they continue that pattern of behavior, then it will have the same effect as someone acting dishonestly, and as such I would agree with your conclusion, but if it was just a brief moment of arrogance then you continuing the conversation might cause them to argue normally going forward.

Also, and this is a strictly practical reason limited to 4chan, occasionally other Anons will jump into a productive conversation with rude remarks and if you adopt an absolute zero-tolerance policy then you are likely to end conversations which are being carried on in a purely respectable manner.

[Anonymous No.21958186]

>>21957025
>You're thinking strictly of one argument/post at a time, which doesn't make sense in this context. One post motivates another person to post, which in turn leads to a back-and-forth exchange, the sum of which is the entire debate. Their acting rudely in one post might have the same affect on your next post, but the effect that your next post has on their next post *will* be dependent on their character and motives. If they continue that pattern of behavior, then it will have the same effect as someone acting dishonestly, and as such I would agree with your conclusion, but if it was just a brief moment of arrogance then you continuing the conversation might cause them to argue normally going forward.
>Also, and this is a strictly practical reason limited to 4chan, occasionally other Anons will jump into a productive conversation with rude remarks and if you adopt an absolute zero-tolerance policy then you are likely to end conversations which are being carried on in a purely respectable manner.
Well said and worth emphasizing.

[Anonymous No.21958380]

>>21956081
>and what survives of Chrysippus
How much is that? Is there a collection you'd recommend?

[Anonymous No.21959389]

courtesy bump

[Anonymous No.21959945]

>>21958380
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysippus check the titles listed in the sources - I haven't read all of them apart from bits of Gould (1970) and Zellar (1880). Sextus Empiricus and Diogenes Laertius are probably the cleanest old world sources.

The more impressive aspects of Chrysippus are new discoveries since certainly people aren't really aware of his influence and achievements:

1) System of precise investigation resembling and greatly predating what we would call Scientific Method today,
2) this being recognized in his day and contributing to his legacy, his dialectic being described as "the dialectic of the gods,"
3) his character revealing 'how' he thought and approached things - this is the most valuable study we really have (I've made the case elsewhere that the absence of his books is actually better for us: since people studying these topics have no opportunity to lapse into schoolboyish dogmatism over "what he said" as they do with other philosophers and end up learning nothing of the methodology),

Empiricus gets that part of things, (against the dogmatists, against the professors, infintieregression as a means to cast doubt on those peoples own dogmas claiming to be absolutely sure of things) ... it's interesting to think that a lot Empiricus's intentions were to fortify the propositional logic of Chrysippus and the Stoics, since it makes more sense that way, rather than the position adopted by later and modern philosophers of "we cannot know anything," etc.

>>21957022
Even this allows us to work with something; as I was aruging yesterday, if a person (does as you say; flies into a temper and isnt being honest) then they're revealing to you and the audience that weren't interested in the truth of the thing but merely in affirming their own preheld notions of a thing. I think to enable the mind to shrug off such people entirely is the vital missing piece in the equation of self-development that th Stoics understood (e.g. extricate ones self from pathos - and recognize the pernicious influence of those who are stuck in pathos in order to become immune to it; i.e. to not throw away a genius discovery - if it's completely correct - because the peers begin to attack you over it).

Good Rhetoric, or Grammatike, is straight Logos whereas Bad Rhetoric is Pathos.

[Anonymous No.21960012]

>>21958186
>worth emphasizing.
>>21957025
>Plenty of people will be vulgar or emotional
I agree in part with what you're saying... this is what I do anyway IRL, for the most part, ...but there is the matter of 'permitting' people to aggrandize themselves at your expense; verbatim ad hominem (to make you seem weak or foolish in order to make your position seem the same way by association), which is a bad rhetorical tactic (appeal to audience, dishonesty, etc.) but which obviously works - even if to maybe to only 10% of on-lookers. If a person, hostile to your position, only engages with you in order to make you seem weak in the eyes of any on-lookers (by doing those kind of things) then there is no reason whatsoever to permit that to take place.

You have to bear in mind that if a person is hostile already to a position and cannot refute it yet will no abandon it then the only course of action they have is to instigate these bad sorts of things; they will be the only people who do instigate it and part of their aim to present an illusion of unpopularity by influencing those others, as you say,
>there are plenty of people who will be rude for the sake of being rude,
>I suspect that on 4chan, or at least /lit/, the people who consciously seek to hide their lack of an argument with personal attacks are relatively few
>occasionally other Anons will jump into a productive conversation with rude remarks and if you adopt an absolute zero-tolerance policy

I appreciate this here - the anonymous online forum - is unique in that it lends itself to this 'fake influence' problem... but it's not radically different to talking in front of a crowd when the basic principles are discerned of the tactic of one person to influence a minority inside that crowd in order to disrupt the discussion to attempt to avoid a conclusion being reached from that discussion.

Consider that this is the only means by which logic is impeded in human societies, for instance, if so (and maybe it is so) then adopting an effective means to render that single method of disruption to be impossible is a necessity. Again, consider the same conversation taking place in a court; it's the threat of punishment that keeps a detractor from hurling abuse and declaring themselves victorious in lieu of proving anything that they say; whilst if they're doing this from an emotional or intellectual failing then notice even then that if they're put in a scenario when they cannot do it (through fear of punishment) then all of a sudden they gain self-control and show themselves to have been 'choosing' to abuse rather than not being able to contain their frustration.

[Anonymous No.21960018]

Richard I know you post here I just know it

[Anonymous No.21960061]

ed.
>whilst if they're doing this from an emotional or intellectual failing then notice even then that if they're put in a scenario when they cannot do it (through fear of punishment) then all of a sudden they gain self-control and show themselves to have been 'choosing' to abuse rather than not being able to contain their frustration.
I mean here: if you're tolerating their conduct because you suppose that it's an emotional failing, then notice how that's not true when a threat of punishment is introduced.

My own opinion, and it is just opinion, is that very very very few people capable of functioning in the world do not possess this self-control, but that they're largely encouraged to never practice it by their societies.

Consider how libel laws aren't enforced or how telling lies, outside of a court, isn't considered to be a crime. It should be, as: if it 'was' treated as a crime then the people with wrong ideas (i mean, ideas they cannot prove yet bitterly attack others over) would be forced to abandon their position, and the harmful effect of their ulterior modes of disrupting investigations into things would end as a consequence.

[Anonymous No.21960111]

>>21960018
richard w?

[Anonymous No.21960180]

>>21954660
>I won't make your case for you, anon, you need to demonstrate a scenario where,
Politicans for example the current belgian health minister or the former eu commissary for digital agenda. Accepting their authority on topics they are ignorant about is admitting defeat

[Anonymous No.21960197]

>>21960012
>If a person, hostile to your position, only engages with you in order to make you seem weak in the eyes of any on-lookers (by doing those kind of things) then there is no reason whatsoever to permit that to take place.
I agree, but the operative word here is "only." If it's a mixture of rudeness and good arguments then the situation is blurrier. In practice, I would tend to match their insults to negate any sort of advantage they gain from doing so; though hardly good rhetoric, that restores an even playing field and is usually quite effective.

>consider the same conversation taking place in a court
Well there is no punishment you can deal out, except ending the conversation or resorting to personal attacks yourself. If a court case had to end every time a lawyer was held in contempt, and that lawyer faced no other repercussions, then a judge would have to be much more selective about holding them in contempt. Obviously that would be a terrible setting for debate, but since it's the one we're on right now you should adjust how you approach the issue accordingly. In that hypothetical bad courtroom, it's easy to imagine some particularly arrogant/impulsive lawyers being rude or aggressive even when their arguments are strong, and you as a lawyer would still have to engage with them. It's only when that behavior rises to a certain threshold that you can conclusively infer that their position is weak.
>>21960061
>if you're tolerating their conduct because you suppose that it's an emotional failing, then notice how that's not true when a threat of punishment is introduced.
There is a relevant distinction between choosing to be rude and not choosing not to be rude. Besides maybe some criminals or young children, everyone is capable of choosing not to be rude in 100% of cases where they aren't provoked. That, however, doesn't mean that that same person is going to choose to not to be rude in a given circumstance. A perfectly self-controlled asshole will not be rude in a courtroom where he could be punished for it (i.e. court), but absolutely would be rude in a situation where he won't be punished for it (i.e. 4channel).

[Anonymous No.21960327]

>>21960197
I think we're not talking about the same thing; a personal attack,
> (ad hominem, off topic, appeal to the audience, etc.).
isn't being "rude" ... in the sense of being vitriolic ... but 'ad hominem', as in: to the person and not to the case/subject/matter/topic. I'm not talking about personal insults (see: >>21954527) but things which avoid the case by diverting the conversation ad hominem... being "rude" is just way too broad; personal taste etc., but clear diversion is a precise thing we can identify.

I'm aware of this precisely because I'm well-aware of the misuse 'of' such counter-measures; people have, in the past, (as well as all the time lol) falsely accused someone of being rude in order to avoid continuing an discussion on a topic, so "being rude" is not a good standard.


>I agree, but the operative word here is "only."
No, it's "if" - i.e. 'if' you're aware that a certain clique "only engages with you in order to (do XYZ)", whereas 'if' you have no reason to think that might be occurring then there's no reason to adopt the counter-measure as there's nobody to warrant it.

>>21960180
>the current belgian health minister
I've heard about this, fuck that guy. If he was dragged into a court and hooked up to lie detection tech there's no way he'd be able to present his case without getting horrible electrical shocks.

[Anonymous No.21960577]

>>21960327
>isn't being "rude" ... in the sense of being vitriolic ... but 'ad hominem', as in: to the person and not to the case/subject/matter/topic
The issue with that is the assumption that you can always differentiate between rudeness and a personal attack. Someone simply being an asshole is often going to be indistinguishable from them being carefully manipulative. As you've argued before (>>21956971), their underlying intention doesn't change the meaning/effect of the words and so in practice they'll function much the same way as normal (i.e. manipulative) personal attacks and should be considered part of the same category. It does, however, reflect differently on the person using them to argue since some person using personal attacks because they're rude might mean they are not hiding some weakness, and their behavior going forward will change depending on their motive for the attacks.

It's really a problem of discerning what personal attacks are just someone being rude, and which ones are intentionally manipulative. Since this is not generally possible to discern, your attitudes and assumptions of all people who use personal attacks should also account for people who are just being rude—at least until you acquire enough information to make a stronger judgment, which is not a luxury that will be available in most cases.

>No, it's "if" - i.e. 'if' you're aware that a certain clique "only engages with you in order to (do XYZ)", whereas 'if' you have no reason to think that might be occurring then there's no reason to adopt the counter-measure as there's nobody to warrant it.
"Only" is still an issue, although I was probably imprecise in my wording. Obviously if someone is only arguing dishonestly then you should assume they're being dishonest and act accordingly. If it's a mixture of honesty and dishonesty then it might make sense to assume the best of them until you are proven wrong.

Also, strictly out of convenience, people might mix personal attacks with logical arguments since, even if they believe they can demonstrate their position rationally, they might also believe that personal attacks will strengthen their position and make it easier to "win" the overall debate. Whether you want to engage with those people is, I suppose, a matter of personal preference, but they're still an exception to the general rule of personal attacks meaning they have a weak position. Even if they correctly believe they could win the debate with logical reasoning, they might want to end it earlier to go jack off or something.

[Anonymous No.21960617]

>>21960577
>Also, strictly out of convenience, people might mix personal attacks with logical arguments since, even if they believe they can demonstrate their position rationally, they might also believe that personal attacks will strengthen their position and make it easier to "win" the overall debate. Whether you want to engage with those people is, I suppose, a matter of personal preference, but they're still an exception to the general rule of personal attacks meaning they have a weak position. Even if they correctly believe they could win the debate with logical reasoning, they might want to end it earlier to go jack off or something.
Or even as a rhetorical flourish, like a mic drop. There's also always the factor of trolling to see someone double down, bluff, get frustrated and off their game, etc.

[Anonymous No.21960634]

Maybe another element is whether the argument is perceived the same way. Like for instance one person could be summarizing a position neutrally and be mistaken for holding it. Are they looking to debate it then? That might get a different response more at crosspurposes between the people arguing.

[Anonymous No.21960666]

>>21960577
>their underlying intention doesn't change the meaning/effect of the words and so in practice they'll function much the same way
Yes, that's why they should be treated the same way; whether they were emotionally disturbed or just pretending tobe emotionally disturbed - but 'if' you don't have proof that deception is 'likely' to be occuring (comparing a subject where people are invested and would attack you to a subject where nobody is invested and nobody would attack you) then you don't have the same need to be heavy-handed about it; to be forced to treat the offended person as if they were putting on a show.

>The issue with that is the assumption that you can always differentiate between rudeness and a personal attack
> Since this is not generally possible to discern,
I don't understand the distinction you're making then; "vitriole" (anything from calling someone an idiot to having your 'posture' being interpreted as indeferent, etc.) is basic rudeness (rudis: unpolished manners), but basic rudeness is 'not' deception that resembles ad hominem in the manner we've described.

>It's really a problem of discerning what personal attacks are just someone being rude, and which ones are intentionally manipulative.
I guess this seems more complicated than it is; although you yourself have said that you're arguing for an overall minority (i.e. the 4chan user on the internet) and not the norm or everyday scenario... not the court room scenario, etc. ... where this otherwise applies.

>Even if they correctly believe they could win the debate with logical reasoning, (and they don't pursue it and insult instead)
...are you suggesting that a person who insults someone has it in their mind that this is 'more effective' to change the other persons mind (than responding directly to an argument with proofs)? I find that preposterous ... and incongruous also with your earlier statements where that person (who insults the other) is frustrated and has given up trying to change the other persons mind, or has had an emotional breakdown and flown into a temper:

e.g.
"Bastard, bastard!" I shouted, in hopes to change Dr Adams mind about his theorum, I thought next of the ting more likely to convince him of the error in his paper, "you have a bad haircut!" I shouted next.

[Anonymous No.21960759]

>>21960666
>Yes, that's why they should be treated the same way; whether they were emotionally disturbed or just pretending tobe emotionally disturbed - but 'if' you don't have proof that deception is 'likely' to be occuring (comparing a subject where people are invested and would attack you to a subject where nobody is invested and nobody would attack you) then you don't have the same need to be heavy-handed about it; to be forced to treat the offended person as if they were putting on a show.
Agreed

>basic rudeness is 'not' deception that resembles ad hominem in the manner we've described.
No, it's not, but it can appear the exact same and have the same effect. If you can't generally differentiate the two, then it makes no sense to differentiate them for the sake of defining what a personal attack is since the only difference is intent. (I suppose at some level, if *intentional* deception is part of your definition of a personal attack, then your rule is correct, but then it amounts to saying that if someone is trying to deceive you, then they're hiding their lack of a legitimate argument—which is basically a tautology)

>are you suggesting that a person who insults someone has it in their mind that this is 'more effective' to change the other persons mind (than responding directly to an argument with proofs)?
Yes, to a point. People are not perfectly rational, and someone else calling them an idiot is sometimes going affect how certain they are in their own argument, which might make them make mistakes or oversights. And, again, the issue is not whether it actually does have that effect; it's whether the person perceives it to have that effect on others, and some people do. It might also motivate someone else to join the discussion and concur with the person making the personal attacks, building consensus, which I think we can agree has a strong psychological effect on anyone who isn't perfectly rational.

I'm also not arguing that it's more effective than using proofs; rather, in conjunction with using proofs it can be more effective than solely relying on proofs. Although some ad hominems might be more effective at convincing others to take a position than actual proof, i.e. calling your opponent a Jew might be more persuasive to Nazis than your well-reasoned argument.

>incongruous also with your earlier statements where that person (who insults the other) is frustrated and has given up trying to change the other persons mind, or has had an emotional breakdown and flown into a temper
Yes, I meant this as a new argument since the rudeness stuff is getting somewhat repetitive. Although, if someone is impolite by nature then they will have very little inhibition about using personal attacks to emphasize their point, even if they know their argument is perfectly strong without them.

[Anonymous No.21960768]

>>21954371
i dont know if I believe that they could craft a sculpture as they did and paint it how its claimed

[Anonymous No.21960779]

>>21960768
chrysippus was one of my lazier attempts,this one is much better. And you're objectively correct; the paintings that survive in Pompeii don't resemble the gaudy high gloss paint that the statues are usually depicted as.

[Anonymous No.21960780]

>>21960759
>someone else calling them an idiot is sometimes going affect how certain they are in their own argument, which might make them make mistakes or oversights
Or make them more likely to be convinced by your argument. I guess that was implicit, but I feel the need to emphasize that *any* reduction in certainty will make someone easier to convince, whatever the source of it. If someone thinks that using personal attacks will achieve that reduction in certainty, then they will likely use personal attacks to gain an advantage. People might have irrational reasons to believe this to be the case, but that says nothing directly about their ability to prove their position on whatever is being debated.

[Anonymous No.21960814]

>>21954668
>>21954668
the guru might be right though independent of his weight.

[Anonymous No.21960841]

>>21960814
If he lives by his own example, then he himself is a counterexample to his argument. Thus bringing up his weight is a legitimate argument. It doesn't mean he's wrong, since there could be another reason for him being fat, like maybe he was even fatter before becoming a vegetarian, but the point is that bringing up his weight is a legitimate way to address his argument because it pertains directly to what he's arguing.

[Anonymous No.21960917]

>>21960759
>to a point.
Then... I disagree. In that specific instance we go full circle back to the premise (the proposition in this topic), that: a person would only jump to verbal abuse 'if' they had no means by which to make an argument because in their own mind they wouldn't know why they held that position in order to be able to effectively articulate it to another people, so when can't make an argument and leap to attacks (or in this instance, also verbal abuse) it's because they're in the wrong.

>I suppose at some level, if *intentional* deception is part of your definition of a personal attack, then your rule is correct,
That is what I'm saying yes - just not in the above paragraph where both pejorative 'and' deception can prove a lack of argument on the part of the attacker.

>but then it amounts to saying that if someone is trying to deceive you, then they're hiding their lack of a legitimate argument—which is basically a tautology
If someone is trying to deceive you it's because their actions, i.e. what they're doing/supporting in reality, they wish to conceal from you by offering up an alternate narrative to present (what they're doing/supporting) as if it were not that thing but something else. If they weren't ashamed/afraid of you knowing their actions/intentions then they'd be happy to explain what they were doing, or would not at least be making the effort to spin the deception. At the same time they wouldn't insult you; e.g. you: "hi, I see you're repairing the bridge, nice work, that's been needing to be done for ages, glad you're on it!" them: "fuck off you idiot!"

I mean, that scenario could occur,
> People are not perfectly rational,
if they were just crazy in that scenario. Even then, you'd wonder about their intentions solely because of the bad reaction they had.

Or... in that specific scenario... they're angry and don't know why their officer has told them to repair the bridge, so they can't be happy about their work as they don't understand why they're doing it.

I'm getting a bit carried away with these hypotheticals lol

> It might also motivate someone else to join the discussion and concur with the person making the personal attacks, building consensus,
Ah well, yes, then it would be a deception; seeking to influence, etc., in which case then the verbal abuse would count again under the same principle.

>Yes, I meant this as a new argument since the rudeness stuff is getting somewhat repetitive.
Haha, I think we've covered some good ground here anyway

[Anonymous No.21961044]

>>21960917
>If they weren't ashamed/afraid of you knowing their actions/intentions then they'd be happy to explain what they were doing, or would not at least be making the effort to spin the deception.
In an ideal world, yes, but this circles back to some people just being assholes, particularly over the internet, even if they do have legitimate arguments and don't care about deceiving someone. Or they think you're stupid for not following their reasoning and don't want to argue with someone whom they think is stupid, so they just call you stupid and move on the same way you might with some excessively obstinate schizophrenic, or their daddy beat them this morning, etc.

>Ah well, yes, then it would be a deception; seeking to influence, etc., in which case then the verbal abuse would count again under the same principle.
I don't know what you mean. Here I am talking about an explicit deception (at least, in a very broad sense), but one being used by someone who believes that it will help win an argument more easily than if he only uses facts. You see this a lot on political issues, where people appeal based on ideological grounds by identifying someone as a common enemy (i.e. communist, tranny, Nazi), since that label will often have just as much (if not more) influence as them stating their entire argument for their political position, which is a time consuming procedure for which most people don't have the patience or time. It doesn't mean that they know their underlying political views are false or unsubstantiated; they just view the use of a pejorative to be a more effective way of establishing consensus (which is often the goal of rhetoric, even under ideal circumstances like a courtroom).

Besides consensus building, I do think that using pejoratives can be useful under select circumstances even in convincing someone that their own position is wrong. For instance, if you perceive that someone lacks knowledge about a particular subject, then calling them ignorant and stupid will make them self-conscious that they might lack the experience in the subject to know what they're talking about. If I see someone giving off obvious indicators of inexperience within a given field making a coherent and accurate argument, then I will often personally attack them rather than only addressing their argument since I assume it will make them feel insecure and question their own judgment, however accurate that judgment actually is. This can resolve an argument much faster than arguing without any personal attacks, and resolving an argument quickly is generally preferable.

[Anonymous No.21961387]

>>21961044
>don't want to argue with someone whom they think is stupid,
> You see this a lot on political issues,
This is a good point... I mean, if the reasoning is correct; that either side are unable or unwilling to convince then it means that either side have no idea why they hold the positions that they do. The presumption of stupidity, then, is more a self-defensive mechanism (a narrative of self-deception) as to their own baselessness on the issues, i.e. ignorance that they don't really know why they're in this camp or shouting down the other party - only to be baffled when asked to not to do this; to explain their own sides policy rather than make-up bad things about the other side.

That's especially evidenced in the political debates in the last century, where the more away from positive cases and onto propaganda campaigns (character attacks, negative association on the opposition) became more common.

I mean, I wouldn't put much rationality onto people like that; certianly not in the sense you're describing, tht they secretly do understand their party political position on every issue (and can articulate it perfectly) but don't think anyone else is capable of understanding or that it's more convincing to the opposition candidate or the voters to accuse the other side of being [negative association].

> If I see someone giving off obvious indicators of inexperience within a given field making a coherent and accurate argument, then I will often personally attack them rather than only addressing their argument since I assume it will make them feel insecure and question their own judgment,
This is known to be false though; the persecution complex, etc., has been known about for millenia when people feed off negative attention and utilize it, like in a political context to be met with abuse only reinforces the delusion of the abusee (esp. if the abuse is anonymous) as it reinforces the persecution complex and allows them to pretend that [x conspiracy] is alive and well and targeting them because they're right.

On that level you suggest, to think it convinces them, that's just wrong and the opposite effect can be shown; especially, again, in the political contexts where enmity and affirmation of persecution by the opposition is the key rallying points for both sides.

Again, though, it's the object we're seeking that we use to judge the effectiveness of something like that; if the person (in that political scenario) has the object of resolution of a thing then they will engage with the issue directly,if they have some other object then they'll be doing things that don't involve dealing with the issue directly.

i gtg again :)

[Anonymous No.21961458]

>>21961387
>I mean, I wouldn't put much rationality onto people like that; certianly not in the sense you're describing, tht they secretly do understand their party political position on every issue (and can articulate it perfectly) but don't think anyone else is capable of understanding or that it's more convincing to the opposition candidate or the voters to accuse the other side of being [negative association].
I disagree. I think that in certain contexts where time is limited, citing the Enemy is a much more effective use of time than babbling on about tax policy. And, simply put, demagoguery works; voters will respond to it and often feel better connected to a candidate who seems like an honest hot-head than the effete ivy-educated goblin with a nasally drone. If your goal as a candidate is to make an impression with one minute of allotted TV time, then do you talk about how your opponent is an evil MAGA Republican, or how his proposed tax cuts will disproportionately favor the upper class?

This is particularly true in party primaries, since all candidates can generally agree on what's Good and Bad, and a candidate who establishes himself as hating Bad the most and loving Good the most is going to have a much easier time than the candidate who, for instance, proposes an innovative prison reform bill.

And yes, I do agree that the best strategy for an extremely intelligent, knowledge, and charismatic speaker would be to play as straight up as possible, but such individuals are few and far between and the sort of signaling that I describe is an easy way to score some points for someone who might have a strong position, but know he probably won't be able to convince enough people of it with honest argumentation, even if his position is quite strong and would hold up well in an arbitrarily long debate.

>This is known to be false though; the persecution complex, etc., has been known about for millenia when people feed off negative attention and utilize it
I don't think that this is universally true. The persecution complex and such are really exceptions to the general rule that people will tend to conform to what they perceive to be the popular/established version of the truth(tm). Some people will be energized by attacks, but other people will be upset and anxious about them—particularly if they're insecure about their argument to begin with. In a political context it's as much about people feeding off of being in a special group, and they will generally conform to the group's viewpoint (although since fringe groups self-select for fringe individuals, they're obviously not very stable). A respected person within that group calling them a retard would make them reevaluate whether their position conforms with the group, which could lead to them changing their opinion to conform or leaving the group altogether.

[Anonymous No.21961495]

>>21961387
More to my point, consider someone who hasn't read a novel very well (or at all) nonetheless puts forward a decent take on a novel, but makes a few oversights/errors which I catch and recognize to indicate that he lacks familiarity with the novel. Suppose I have a stronger position but don't feel like sitting around for awhile arguing with him. If I want to convince that person that he is wrong, then by personally attacking him I (might) make him believe that his knowledge of the novel is too poor to even consider debating the subject seriously, prompting him to resign from the debate and likely assume my position was correct. Had I just corrected/ignored the mistakes then he would have carried on in a normal argument and it would probably take much longer to convince him of anything.

If someone is confident in their own knowledge/position, then obviously this won't work and if anything will be harmful for your chances of winning, but that's not going to be the case for every debate; even debates where both sides have strong arguments and could easily go back and forth on an issue for hours. Now, confidence and ability are certainly correlated, but an intelligent person with little experience in something might be very unconfident in their ability to debate the subject, and yet still be able to make the inferences and deductions needed to argue at a level significantly above their prior knowledge while a debate is ongoing. Insulting such a person forces them to immediately reckon with whether their position is strong (something which they know they might not be qualified to accurately judge), without giving them time to acclimate to the subject or acquire new information from external sources or other people in the debate.

That doesn't necessarily mean the person doing the insulting is intentionally avoiding a fair debate because they know they'll lose; they might be avoiding it simply out of not wanting to get bogged down in the details of a back-and-forth when they believe they can simply strong-arm their opponent out of the debate with very little effort expended.

[Anonymous No.21962133]

>>21955047
>anymore than I'd waste half an hour explaining that literate Men use the words in the order they mean in order to convey absolute precision.

The best linguistics experts in the word know that they can barely tell you in the general case how it it that a given human, speaking a given language, actually determines the acceptability of a given work choice. Much of how we process and understand language is unconscious and implicit. We have meaningful control over it, and can direct our language faculties to produce sentences we deem to be good at conveying an intended meaning, and more literate speakers will be better at this, but you are greatly overestimating the power of our rational faculties, and putting too much stock in their ability to determine what is and is not acceptable or good.

I'll be blunt, everything I'm reading from you demonstrates to me that you are absolutely a pseud, if you are not deliberately trolling or pretending to be an ignorant and overconfident person. You have only a basic, if not basically corrupted, understanding of epistemology and rhetoric at best, and not the sense or insight to back it up. I doubt if you've ever read a text on classical or modern formal logic at all. You are vastly too trusting in the power of 'proof' to determine arguments dealing with practical matters.

[Anonymous No.21962313]

>>21961495
>>21961458
>That doesn't necessarily mean the person doing the insulting is intentionally avoiding a fair debate
Well, I think the ultimate rationale behind all of these examples can be shown to draw back, in each case, to the earlier cause I suggested, that: if a person in their own mind does not know why they hold the belief that they do (or if they hold it nominally ((XYZ)) but for ulterior reasons ((UVW)) they won't admit to) then they 'cannot' articulate their reasoning because they do not have any to articulate. It may be true that, as you say, they just can't be bothered to but I struggle to find examples of this that would tip the scales more over to that (i.e. making that the more probable cause) than to the things I've mentioned as otherwise being the cause.

And I mean at the most fundamental level of a thing; 'if' a person has a belief/position which they cannot articulate then the notion of 'discussing a thing' would not be part of their character (or habit) as they would seek to avoid discussion as a part of their character instead.

> And, simply put, demagoguery works; voters will respond to it
Sure, but it's always going to be based in an absence of logic; as could as easily be (as you say) "i know i'm right, i don't need to bother" as "i'm going to defraud the public," both for the speaker and for the audience or voter, as the audience or voter will have not learned what it is that they're supporting by having been influenced by character attacks (in the vaudeville sense of politics that Chris Hedges describes) and so will, in turn, possess no comprehension of what/why either.

>The persecution complex and such are really exceptions to the general rule
Strongly disagree, it's evidenced constantly; consider political ideologies and religions where the aim is to accrue a narrative of persecution in order to justify XYZ. I could make the case that what we see (with the individual) is them following that example and copying it out, being more interested in performing that play-act than in discovering the actionable cause of their espoused grievance. If you consider it like that then you'll notice it's a vast thing that's spread all over a society and in prominence of influence, and not limited only to one political or religious camp or another the majority of them.

Largely, as you say, because it works - but that 'is' demagoguery and is bad and inferior for all the reasons that are already obvious and the reasons I added which were perhaps less obvious.

e.g. Alcibiades winning votes during his electoral campaign by putting on a great show has, at the same time, consisted in an avoidance of scrutiny of his proposed plans to invade Syracuse.

That example, compare to the merits of the Iraq War (which was predicted to turn out how it did); if discussion had occurred then the plans may have been revised and improved, to have achieved victory, or scrapped as the costs and consequences would have been revealed.

[Anonymous No.21962315]

>>21962133
You might want to say more about proof and logic before making OP's point for them. Glancing around, it looks like OP puts weight in Chrysippus's logic, which I guess is eary sentential logic?

[Anonymous No.21962361]

>>21962133
>> literate Men use the words in the order they mean in order to convey absolute precision.
>The best linguistics experts in the word know that they can barely tell you

This is off-topic to this thread and off-topic to grammar vs linguistics:

The person did not possess a functional grasp of English language and believed that the precise language I was using was selected arbitrarily, as if to impress others with large words, demonstrating illiteracy.

If you're suggesting that we cannot use language to conve reasoning or investigate things then.. this is pure fantasy; over-thinking things and 'not' caring about the necessary 'proofs' to 'determine' what the real-world practical matters are.

>You are vastly too trusting in the power of 'proof' to determine arguments dealing with practical matters.


>you are absolutely a pseud, if you are not deliberately trolling or pretending to be an ignorant
If you want to find some means to justify a character attack against the topic you're going to have to try better than that to get a foot in the door to do so than using an apologism for illiteracy as a premise; you need to find a more functional premise to rest the second paragraph on...

..or don't, because I suspect you're operating on bad faith and you 'are' breaking the off-topic rule anyway so ... i wouldn't bother talking to me if i were you.

[Anonymous No.21962381]

>>21962315
>sentential logic
Yes, but this is another topic lol

Good Rhetoric being "straight logos" is where your argument, structured, resembles (25+5=30) ("if this"+"and this"="that") whilst arguments that do not follow a proof basis are all automatically non-sequitur in the way they've come to the person in their mind and in the way that proofs are avoided by them; i.e. they do not articulate cases with proofs but seek out ad hominem.

[Anonymous No.21962458]

>>21962381
>Good Rhetoric being "straight logos" is where your argument, structured, resembles (25+5=30) ("if this"+"and this"="that") whilst arguments that do not follow a proof basis are all automatically non-sequitur
What happens if people disagree on the proof basis? Like if you use ancient sentential logic, but someone else uses the modern form? Are there proofs for the forms of arguments being better or more true, or are they axiomatic?

[Anonymous No.21962512]

>>21962458
>ancient sentential logic
Largely, as I said earlier, the point of how/why this is the only (or anyway most accurate) method of inquiry is because it literally 'is' the scientific method by which all knowledge of things is reached; once understanding this and that the basis of proper argument/inquiry is to actually 'be right' rather than 'seem to be right' then you arrive at a kind of universal axiom.

The only flw in this is that theaxiom could become dogmatic; to insist upon a thing that was true yesterday but which fuher eidence has shown to be not true, but then we return to the basis of "being right" - or as we've said here, of the 'object' of interest (whether it's to understand a thing and so be happy to be corrected so as to obtain most complete understanding of a thing, i.e. scientific, or whether it's simply social status; to desire to 'seem' as if one is correct in a preheld notion of a thing).

[Anonymous No.21962525]

>>21962512
>Largely, as I said earlier, the point of how/why this is the only (or anyway most accurate) method of inquiry is because it literally 'is' the scientific method by which all knowledge of things is reached
Could you say more on this? I think above you said it's the closest to modern science. If the logic is "if this" + "and this" = "that" is there any issue with how we know the "if this" is true?

[Anonymous No.21962527]

>>21962458
ed. I mean that it's realizing this >>21962512 that we can then understand the grasp of this in ancient world; when people would have cause to say that (this dialectic) was "the dialectic of the gods" and "felix causas (happy is he who understands the causes of things)," as well as the broader points in Stoicism where "(self) extrication from Pathos" comes into context; to avoid the latter, (social status; to desire to 'seem' as if one is correct in a preheld notion of a thing) and stick to the former ( to understand a thing and so be happy to be corrected so as to obtain most complete understanding of a thing, i.e. scientific) - to recognize that that latter in totally inferior because it produces no actionable knowledge.

[Anonymous No.21962542]

>>21962525
sure, see: >>21962527

> If the logic is "if this" + "and this" = "that" is there any issue with how we know the "if this" is true
Well yes, how we determine "if this" is a dicussion of the proofs of a specifc thing. I'mnot suggesting that infallibility is automatically gained by a person who follows ths, as the nessecity of constant inquiry and reifnement is only sensible; to continue that improvement process toward (the truth of a thing),

But, if you mean, generally speaking, "how we know," then it's the confirmed predictions, and we can already know what our predictions of a thing are right; i.e. that this is how knowledge is obtained, by recalling the practical applications of things: examples where we observe a natural process, agriculture etc., and can replicate the benefits and amplify the benefits by improvement... whereas if we don't see the predicted results then we've confirmed that (whatever we were doing) was incorrect.

[Anonymous No.21962543]

>>21962527
I guess I'm wondering then whether Stoic ethics or logic comes first. If the logic is meant to keep you on track to knowing this or that for the sake of living by the ethics, are the ethics assumed,, or proved by the logic?

[Anonymous No.21962595]

>>21962543
That's.. also another topic... I'm not entirely sure about that one myself; whether if we're suddenly following 'logos' we disregard 'ethnos/ethos' as being entirely suspect. I wrote, recently, about how the comprehesion of 'ethos' is a misnomer; we say ethics but we mean virtue, we said, in the past, 'ethnos' and we attached an erroneous presumption of 'ethos' 'to' ethnos; which was an error. Ethos is linguistically tied to Ethnos, I mean.

My opinion on this that if we're following Logos then it's more likelt that we end up as Virtuous; we seek amicable resolution to things, we seek to be just, etc., for all to be happy with the decisions we make, ...whereas if we follow "Ethnos (and it's Ethos)" then we're far less likely to arrive at Virtue, since Ethos in this sense is just "local tradition; handed down which hasn't been checked to see whether it's correct or incorrect."

i.e. one is more likely to produce the desirable "good ethics" than the other, in real demonstrable ways. Considering larger consequences of things like governorship f a society by an elite group; in the short term it seems best to follow an argument of selfishness and exploitation (someone might argue), but in the long term it's clearly demonstrated that not exploiting people will not result in the people wishing to overthrow you.

So,
Logic definitely comes first; but with the long-term consequences of a thing being taken into account.

[Anonymous No.21962645]

>>21954371
Nobody is able to show anything to be true without a given context, a list of assumptions. You have to allow some benefit of doubt, at least temporarily to understand any position. When you instead pretend your position is "proven" and any challenge to it is not you're not engaging in thought or debate, you're promoting a specific dogma as holy truth.
When applied the premise you presented undermines any attempt to understand anything, communicate or think. It does the opposite of what the study of rhetoric attempts to accomplish.

[Anonymous No.21962654]

>>21962645
>When you instead pretend your position is "proven" and any challenge to it is not
No no, there's a vital distinction; we're talking about how to spot and avoid things which interfere with legitimate actual discussion of legitimate participants.

[Anonymous No.21962677]

>>21962645
ed. >>21962654
I mean,
>the premise you presented undermines any attempt to understand anything, communicate or think
for example, if you're standing beside a man whose only output in a discussion has been shouting pejoratives or defacting on the floor, and claiming that my inclination to have him removed for disruption is "undermining his attempt to understanding, communicate or think," then given the incongruity of your claim as to the reality of his actions I'd be inclined to have you removed along with him - as it would be a preposterous claim on your part.

So, we go back to the premise of this topic.

[Anonymous No.21962680]

>defacting
*defecating

.. Freudian slip there lol

[Anonymous No.21962690]

>>21954371
Either what's presented has a logical structure or it doesn't. You don't seem to grasp the concept and constantly get confused. I can call you a retard and present a well structured argument appealing to premises you hold at the same time. If you understand basic logic there's no need for dumb these kinds of dumb heuristics.
The motivation for making your post is to cope with being constantly called a retard. Consider the possibility that you're constantly called a retard because the things you say are retarded.
>>21962654
Notice the lack of structure in this post for example, it says absolutely nothing and implies you didn't understand a word of the post you replied to. Why is it so hard for you to "spot" incoherent nonsense that you need to resort to heuristic associations? Your posts are what you're saying you trying to avoid.
>>21962677
Here you dismiss the presented structured points based on this mindless mechanical heuristic. Why would you think this is reasonable? Aren't the results obvious? You now have an excuse to avoid all criticism and reinforce any dogma you want. You're looking for excuses to avoid thinking. This is how you became as retarded and useless as you currently are.

[Anonymous No.21962717]

>>21962690
>Notice the lack of structure in this post for example, it says absolutely nothing and implies you didn't understand a word of the post you replied to. Why is it so hard for you to "spot" incoherent nonsense that you need to resort to heuristic associations?

This is a good example of what I just said here: >>21962677 and of the premise of this topic.

You've begun with a post that had misrepresented what has been said; you haven't understood the premise, I've explained the difference, then you've ignored the explanation and attempted to present the explanation as "incoherent nonsense."

Bad faith argument (or ignorant misunderstanding: which we've largely agreed in this thread ought be treated in the same way) resulting personal attack.

[Anonymous No.21962741]

>>21962717
>if you're standing beside a man whose only output in a discussion has been shouting pejoratives or defacting on the floor
Every post you make is the equivalent of shit on the floor. I agree that if anyone can be dismissed without further consideration it's floorshittng retards like you but even in your case the actual content of the posts is what matters, not the irrefutable fact that you're a retard.
Dismissing the content based on heuristics like observations about your retardation would be an example of a "fallacy". A word you use a lot but don't understand even a little.

[Anonymous No.21962824]

>>21962741
Oh it's you, aristotle anon, I recognize your schizophrenic sentences and extreme verbal abuse. I won't waste my time with you, since yo're completely bad faith - I would exceed text limit in a single post to go through sentence by sentence everything non-sequitur and irrational and schizophrenic-like in what you've just said... copying of words and phrases, etc., constant verbal abuse, no proofs given, misrepresnenting of position and claim that being corrected about it is incoherent, just a barrage of bad rhetoric lol

as i said, i would exceed text limit to go through this in the detail i would like but.. here, for fun:
>>21962741 6 insults, no case or proofs
>>21962690 1st para: 4 insults, no case or proofs (assumption that you're just always right), 2nd para: schizophrenic inversion of cases made against you, no case or proofs (technically 1 long insult), 3rd para: 2 insults, schizophrenic inversion of cases made against you, no case or proofs

What prompted you to do this:

your first comment,
>>21962645
>When you instead pretend your position is "proven" and any challenge to it is not you're not engaging in thought or debate, you're promoting a specific dogma as holy truth.

my reply,
>>21962654
>, there's a vital distinction; we're talking about how to spot and avoid things which interfere with legitimate actual discussion of legitimate participants.

The only difference here and in your previous verbal abuse is that you held off on the verbal abuse until you had been shown to have misunderstood the topic.

VERY FUN TIMES ANON :) but i won't continue to play doctor with you again

[Anonymous No.21962832]

[Anonymous No.21962843]

>>21962824
Nope, you're talking to others. I've been playing nice this thread.

[Anonymous No.21962864]

>>21962824
>I won't waste my time
Why do you do it though? Is this the only place where you can arrange things so your delusions aren't really challenged?
>6 insults, no case or proofs
I applied your "argument" to your own posts. Do you really not understand that? It doesn't occur to you to apply your arguments everywhere? What's the point of making any argument about anything in the first place if you then selectively apply them?

[Anonymous No.21962893]

>>21962843
>>21962864
not playing these games with you. I think your sustained psychological abuse warrants a stay in a mental hospital, as i've said to you before, aristotle anon.

[Anonymous No.21962895]

>>21962824
>there's a vital distinction
Nothing in the post implies I don't understand the distinction between shitting on the floor and presenting a structured argument. You ignored the post completely and just randomly out of nowhere started implying you're the only person able to identify shit on the floor. Not allowing anyone any benefit of doubt like you do means you're guaranteed to never understand anything. You act as if everyone is retarded which is much worse than calling out specific examples of them being retarded like I do with you.

[Anonymous No.21962903]

>>21962893
Again, you're talking to someone else. Lol don't mess up the only good thread you've made. You've been chatting with me politely way above unawares.

[Anonymous No.21962910]

>>21962893
Stop posting forever, it's not for you. Test your theories in the real world. Here you can always pretend you're right and everyone else is simple retarded or lying like you do in every single fucking thread no matter how many different people call out your severe mental retardation.
If you understand basic logic why does nothing you try in the real world ever work? Why do your predictions about me, others and events always turn out completely wrong?

[Anonymous No.21962917]

>>21962895
>You ignored the post completely
schizophrenic inversion of what you did...

> and just randomly out of nowhere started implying that you're the only person
schizophrenic inversion of what you did...

Honestly, aristotle anon, you need to reread the premise and not ignore it when I prove how you made a mistake. After you did this all you're doing is proving to the reader why this premise needs to applied, primarily to deal with psychopaths such as yourself who just won't stop what they do.

You have schizophrenia, as I've told you before.

[Anonymous No.21962929]

>>21962910
>Stop posting forever, it's not for you. Test your theories in the real world. Here you can always pretend you're right and everyone else is simple retarded or lying like you do in every single fucking thread no matter how many different people call out your severe mental retardation.
schizophrenic inversion of what you did...

Again, you're demonstrating why this premise needs to applied, primarily to deal with psychopaths such as yourself who just won't stop what they do.

[Anonymous No.21962933]

>>21962917
Incredible, I, "Aristotle anon", am >>21962903 and >>21962843 (and other posts upthread you've been chatting nicely with). Thread is starting to nosedive by assuming anyone who disagrees with you or is rude to you is me.

[Anonymous No.21962952]

>>21962933
I truly don't care what you say, you're abusing an anonymous forum in order to shout down a topic you dislike but cannot refute. Multiple posts claiming to be other people, with each post peppered with extreme psychological abuse, doesn't convince me of anything; if you are three different people then it's gang-stalking I guess lol and none of you are speaking normally, it's just constant abuse which began all at once, based on a misrepresentation of the premise of the topic which was explained to you.

[Anonymous No.21962971]

>>21962952
Last chance; notice the (You)s next to my posts I tagged, (Yous) lacking from the posts you tagged that you think are me? There's 22 posters in this thread. You're arguing with at least one right now, and all I'm doing in the last 20 minutes is showing you're conflating people. Come on, you're supposed to better at reasoning than this.

[Anonymous No.21962973]

>>21962917
>schizophrenic inversion of what you did...
The actual content of the posts is what matters, not the intelligence level of the poster or how many insults he has used.
This statement basically sums up the content of every post I made in this thread. Why have you not engaged with the point on any level or how it relates to your original premise? Why do you want to focus so much on how easily triggered you are by the mildest insults instead?
>when I prove how you made a mistake
All you've done is get triggered by mild insults and then act as if the premise you presented for critique in the OP as dogma that should be worked from as a fundamental assumption even when discussing if it's valid or not.
The actual content of the posts is what matters, not the intelligence level of the poster or how many insults he has used. Why do you disagree with this? By judging ideas on merit instead of who posts them I have access to more potentially useful ideas than you, the closeminded retard refusing to think.

[Anonymous No.21963005]

>>21962952
>based on a misrepresentation
Then attempt to clarify retard. The floorshitting attempt added nothing. Like I said nobody can show anything to be true, the first premise you give in your argument is already based on abandoning logic and appealing to your own subjective sense of truth instead of some structured method.
>I'm being gangstalked and everyone except me is insane
Sounds extremely sane.

[Anonymous No.21963007]

>>21962973
>>21962971
>>21962971
>Why have you not engaged with the point on any level or how it relates to your original premise?
..schizophrenic inversion of what you did...

I think I've demonstrated the pattern of your responses enough at this point. Which is obviously your aim to do here, to make 'me' seem unreasonable.

But whatever... it's an anonymous forum and I don't I trust you not to e dishonest enough to edit screencaps, given previous threads of sustained psychological abuse and no refutation or engagement to the topic.

One day, when anonymous forums don't have this fatal flaw, it won't even be an issue.

>Last chance
Thread is over and the discussion before you arrived enabled me to refine and improve the premise. I've already gotten what I wanted from it, random troll.

So you can drink bleach :)

[Anonymous No.21963028]

>>21963005
>Like I said nobody can show anything to be true,

lol .. look, on the off chance your day release holds out for a few more months, wait til the next thread when this comes up, try and prove to me again how all knowledge based on observation of natural processes somehow doesnt exist.

such a stupid statement.

>extremely sane
you said it laddy buck.

[Anonymous No.21963034]

>>21963007
>But whatever... it's an anonymous forum and I don't I trust you not to e dishonest enough to edit screencaps, given previous threads of sustained psychological abuse and no refutation or engagement to the topic.
Yeah, how do I edit the (You)s out of the screenshot of post tags mid paragraph at >>21962843?

>Thread is over and the discussion before you arrived enabled me to refine and improve the premise. I've already gotten what I wanted from it, random troll.
Lol I got you to walk back from positions way above and you didn't notice. But since you're hung up on this ironically schizo "everyone who disagrees with me is this one guy" schtick, I'll bow out and let you sperg your own thread into dust. Just remember that you "coulda been a contender", but you don't know how to interact on 4chan. Gratifying as usual.

[Anonymous No.21963051]

>>21963007
This is like the 15th post were you avoid thinking about anything I said about the actual subject you pretended to be interested in the OP and just rant about how hurt your feelings are that we would dare call you retarded.
>your goal is to make 'me' seem unreasonable.
This assumption is unreasonable, insane even. Just engage with the actual points, like a reasonable person. Simply stop behaving like a deranged retard and I won't point out that you're acting like a deranged retard.
In every thread you make my first post doesn't call you retarded, I give you the benefit of the doubt and hope you reply with something slightly coherent. You always prove my optimism wrong, maybe your OP is right, some people really should just be completely dismissed beforehand without giving them any benefit of doubt.
>the pattern of your responses
Why do you insist to focus on some perceived mental illness instead of the content of the posts? You're not in any position to question the mental health of anyone and it's not relevant. Even schizos and mongoloids can understand the basic of logic and structured arguments with training.
Where did the actual discussion go? Why don't you care about it anymore now that someone committed the cardinal sin of calling you a retard?
>If they held an intellectual position which was able to be shown by them to be true, they would never engage in personal attacks.
Why retard? Logically the things are completely separate. Is questioning this premise now wrong because I called you a retard while doing it?

[Anonymous No.21963092]

>>21963028
>lol
See, you don't even give the benefit of the doubt temporarily to explore different perspectives. In the "polite" post I said your first premise is nonsense and you just skipped over that as if any discussion rooted in this, with premises so divergent won't be inherently incoherent.
>all knowledge based on observation of natural processes somehow doesnt exist.
Truth exists but you can't logically show anything to be true without resting the statements in assumptions that can't be proven.
Basic logic shit again. Confusing statements with reality. The word "moon" is not the moon. I can't logically show the moon exists through pure arguments with no assumptions, I have to point at it and we agree on a label. If you refuse to even tilt your head up because I haven't proven the moon exists there's nothing I can do, you're undermining communication and your own ability to think.

[Anonymous No.21963099]

>>21963034
>how do I edit the (You)s out o
by opening a 2nd tab in a standard browser with VPN and reloading the screen.

>I got you to walk back from positions way above and you didn't notice
Oh no, I'm so hurt(!) My intention was obviously not to refine the premise but to imply seem as if i was 'unbeaten' about an academic point to boost my social status points on an anonymous forum. (heavy sarcasm)

> you don't know how to interact on 4chan
Why would I copy your behavior? If I woke up as someone who had so little in life as to be gratified by annoying an unknown person by engaging in psychological abuse over a text medium - for years (given your old fashioned internet lingo) - I'd kill myself.

Good luck with that though. I'm not gratified by this; I'm sorry that nobody helped you when you were younger by steering you onto a more rational basis for your life.

[Anonymous No.21963116]

>>21963099
>by opening a 2nd tab in a standard browser with VPN and reloading the screen.
1) I'm phoneposting, and 2) 4chan bans VPN users. But I said I'd bow out so no more from me.

[Anonymous No.21963131]

>>21963099
>psychological abuse
For any given text and for any given situation there are multiple interpretations possible and usually no interpretation accounts for all elements involved. Small differences in premises can change the framing and your perception of any given situation completely.
The number of posters or how insane they are isn't relevant to the content of the posts but you still make every thread you're in about these kinds of fantasies for some reason. That's insane. Notice the difference between calling you insane and calling out your actually insane actions.

[Anonymous No.21963164]

>>21963099
>>21963116
Inspect element and change the text you absolute retards.

[Anonymous No.21963181]

>>21963092
>See, you don't even give the benefit of the doubt
Why anyone give an abusive person the benefit of the doubt? If you weren't peppering every sentence with 'retard' and ignoring the proofs given against you, then 'benefit of the doubt' would be able to be given.

That's self-evident, isn't it?

>>21963051
>This is like the 15th post
Uh sure, see the above, since you're saying the same thing.


>>21963131
..schizophrenic inversion again.. lol

>>21963116
>I said I'd bow out so no more from me
Yeah me too.

Take care.

Actually, >>21963116 if you were talking nicely earlier or yesterday, then good, I'm glad you've become able to engage on a rational level, aristotle anon. See? we've both improved as a result of good discussion when you didn't come on the keyboard half drunk looking to flirt-trash-talk with other Men

see, we're best buds now.

[Anonymous No.21963189]

>>21963164
Not for phoneposting

[Anonymous No.21963196]

>>21963116
>VPN users
Don't basically all browsers have VPN now? I've got VPN built in and on 24/7, I didn't ever turn it on either.

>>21963164
>Inspect element
correct. my fellow opera user

[Anonymous No.21963203]

>>21963181
>>I said I'd bow out so no more from me
>Yeah me too.
>Take care.
>Actually, >>21963116 (You) # if you were talking nicely earlier or yesterday, then good, I'm glad you've become able to engage on a rational level, aristotle anon. See? we've both improved as a result of good discussion when you didn't come on the keyboard half drunk looking to flirt-trash-talk with other Men
>see, we're best buds now.
Lol I wouldn't say best buds, but yeah, it's big of you to grant me that here, and recognize it. Until the next thread, cheers dude.

[Anonymous No.21963208]

>>21963203
>and recognize
*and *I* recognize it

[Anonymous No.21963245]

>>21963181
>Why anyone give an abusive person the benefit of the doubt?
This referenced your reply to the "polite" post, before anything you call "abuse". See what I mean about coherence? Why can't you maintain it? Are you actually mentally ill? Maybe you should consider the possibility.
>That's self-evident, isn't it?
No. Like I repeated many times I believe in giving everyone as much benefit of doubt as possible to broaden my own collection of perspectives about things. If you have a logically structured point nothing you said previously undermines the structure, it's completely independent and should be taken on its own merit.
>Uh sure
You can read the interaction. I constantly try to bring it back on subject and you consistently derail into insane sperging.
>..schizophrenic inversion
Repeating buzzwords is another coping mechanism. If I'm ill why not attempt to help me? I'm attempting to help you think, you respond with buzzwords like you're a parody of an actual homeless schizo.
You're not building anything in your posts and when I attempt to build you respond by calling me schizophrenic while not adding anything. When I call your blatantly retarded posts retarded and explain why that's "psychological abuse" but when you shut down any chance of building anything with your insults that's reasonable?

[Anonymous No.21963261]

>>21963181
>see, we're best buds now.
You're so incredibly pathetic on so many levels. Why do you think you're "rational" in any way? What do you base this on? Why can't you apply this rationality?

[Anonymous No.21963736]

ohh okay, just for fun:

>>21963261
>Why do you think you're "rational" in any way? What do you base this on?
Uh hmm.. well, I can prove what I say and you can't. Again, as [you have made no case and began with verbal abuse] there's no reason to take you seriously in anything you say at all.

The tactic, for example, of inversion and character attack; false accusation, is not convincing to anybody except a person perhaps browsing who hadn't seen the context.

I agree, it can work sometimes; you could upset people by doing this, but it's an impediment to those of us who are actually interested in discussing the topics rather than getting into ad hominem.

I don't really need to know what your motives are, even though it' fun to speculate on them, since the first words out of your mouth condemned you as disruptive to the more important matters to hand (i.e. the topic itself).

>Are you actually mentally ill?
>Repeating buzzwords
When I tell you that XYZ is schizophrenic I'm using the correct DSM criteria to point out the gaping disconnect from reality in your claims.

I'm not sure why anyone would be confused about the uses of these words, since a quick googlesearch would demonstrate truth of this.

After I've established this, then: your responses can be understood as being part of that spectrum, the trigger-reflexive "no you (are guilty of what i'm doing)," which is accompanied by no proofs on your part. So I'm not likely to take you seriously when you're copying my words and throwing them back at me. I'll admit that it is an effective tactic in a TV news debate, for example, utilizing the same plausibility of doubt that "majority of audience won't realize what's happening," but this is exactly how ad hominem operates.

I mean, this seems to me like bullshit on your part, given your incredible hostility and disinterest in sticking to the topic,
>like I repeated many times I believe in giving everyone as much benefit of doubt

> If I'm ill why not attempt to help me?
You are being helped by me, I'm not insulting you back for instance. I'm patiently encouraging you to stop with your pantomime and to return to the topic, if you're able to articulate your real concerns about the premise (of the topic) then express them; it may be something I actually haven't considered and if you have a valid concern then you have something legitimate to add to the discussion. If you don't do this in the next reply, immediatly and without peppering your reply with verbal abuse, I'll just use you as an example to confirm the premise (and the danger of not applying the premise to identify bad faith actors), since that's the only conclusion that can be drawn from your refusal to engage sensibly. Either way, I benefit.

[Anonymous No.21964444]

ok /rhet/, settle a debate for me. I got into a long debate with a guy on youtube largely about the definition of objective/subjective (specifically in the context of morality and God). Who made the better argument here? Jeffrey Black or voskresenie?
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oltsfcVWe3A&lc=UgzMq_Xq6ACmmo4jmih4AaABAg.9n-oiO6DE7A9nskoeE2hyO
there's a lot of back and forth, if you want to skip some of it, this is a decent place to start
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oltsfcVWe3A&lc=UgzMq_Xq6ACmmo4jmih4AaABAg.9n-oiO6DE7A9oSyHe7bc_J

[Anonymous No.21964852]

>>21964444
checked. skipped into the middle of video and the guy was like is grass is green true because of this gay shit im pretending is intellectual thought. God taught us proper morality. therefore His influence existed before morality

[Anonymous No.21965077]

>>21964852
the comments have almost nothing to do with the video being discussed. the video is spending 30 minutes explaining an overwhelmingly obvious concept from a Plato dialogue that could be explained in about 3 minutes.

[Anonymous No.21965122]

>>21964444
>the definition of objective/subjective (specifically in the context of morality and God)
I don't think logos can ever extend into things that cannot be demonstrated in material reality, as there would be no proofs to construct a case with... and ...we'd have no reason to take any claim without proofs to be correct for the same reason that we wouldn't make any claims without proof ourselves (there would be no basis or foundation to begin from) ... e.g. what would give you the idea that a god 'existed' if you hadn't met the god personally and he'd told you he was a god? or: if you're drawing a god from abstractions of natural processes (i.e. there is order to things we call god) then that choice to call that order a god would be subjective... or: where does the concept of a god come from in the first place and is 'seeking this' a form of confirmation bias at the expense of understanding natural processes.

Plotinus made this case to the early christians (or so-called gnostics) about the error of removing divinity from the material world and of the error of making-up an "alternate dimension" where proofs can be avoided; as then you can't defend your beliefs and anybody can make-up whatever good or bad they want, claim that it's god, and would have a case equal in merit to yours, which you wouldn't be able to argue against.

>>21964852
>and the guy was like is grass is green true because of this gay shit im pretending is intellectual thought
Yeah I hate this. I mean it's like the kind of perplexion over something like this, "if a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound?" when the answer is an obvious "yes it does," as: reality doesn't give a shit whether a human happens to notice what's going on or not and certainly doesn't exist to impress us... e.g. to suggest that "noise doesn't occur" if a human isn't nearby to hear it, or that the cutlery on the dinner table stand up and engage in political debate when we're not around.

[Anonymous No.21965680]

>>21965122
>tree
The existence of an independent physical reality is not as obvious and uncontroversial a claim as you think. This is the case for almost all "obvious" answers. Try to prove it and you'll see

[Anonymous No.21965906]

>>21965680
>The existence of a (a tree) is not as obvious and uncontroversial a claim as you think. This is the case for almost all "obvious" answers.
I think people who would proclaim that "(this tree we are both looking at) doesn't exist" need legitimate psychiatric help.

>Try to prove it and you'll see.
Challenge accepted. There is the tree.

-_-

you, also, can't apply any reasoning at all (omething immediately demosntraed to you each day to be false) if you go forth under the basis that "physical reality" isn't real. You have, for example, learned how to do lots of things; if physical reality wasn't real you wouldn't have been able to learn to walk or write, as the manner would be completely random and unreplicable for having no basis to be observed and replicated.

[Anonymous No.21966122]

>>21965906
You're not really saying you're a Moorean? I don't care to attempt to engage with that nonsense again, I'm through with the 101. (Also, the tree is in the forest with no one around to see it.)

[Anonymous No.21966171]

>>21966122
1st post,
>the tree we can both see is not real
2nd post,
>you say the tree is real, this is nonsense!

aaaaaaannon,
you must start acting in parody theatre, you've got a real talent for deadpan hysterical

[Anonymous No.21966240]

Here's a good title:
understadning the nonsense that pervaded western european philosophy: a brief appraisal of the 500 yrs in which absolute proof was denied for fear of violent backlash by religious establishment, and the various nonsensical authors of that period whose works can be understood as eager attempts to please.

[Anonymous No.21966760]

>>21965122
the question of whether or not God exists is irrelevant to the discussion. If we take as a given that God exists and that we can know what he wants, the question is, is "it is moral to do what God says to do; it is immoral to do what God says not to do, or to not do what God says to do" an objective moral system? Jeffrey argues that because it's based on God's "opinion", it is inherently subjective. Whereas I'd say it's objective, because what God says to do is a matter of truth, not opinion -- we can have an opinion about /what/ he says to do, but given that we know what he says to do, it's objective.
>>21965077
>>21965122
>and the guy was like is grass is green true because of this gay shit im pretending is intellectual thought
>Yeah I hate this. I mean it's like the kind of perplexion over something like this, "if a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound?"
That's not what he's doing at all. He's trying to explain Plato's question in the dialogue: "do the gods love good things because they are good, or are they good because the gods love them?" He explains it by mean of the grass example: "is grass green because the statement 'grass is green' is a true statement, or is 'grass is green' a true statement because grass is green?" Obviously it's the latter. It's not meant to be a deep statement, he's just clarifying what Plato's question is asking -- which seems like it shouldn't be necessary, but lots of people get confused by it, and he's a college professor so he's used to catering lectures to the bottom 30% of the class. Apparently, given your inability to understand the very basic explanation, you are below the bottom of the class.

[Anonymous No.21967091]

>>21966760
>"it is moral to do what God says to do; it is immoral to do what God says not to do, or to not do what God says to do"
Well that's totes off-topic...

but this:
>Jeffrey argues that because it's based on God's "opinion"
Directly relates the last post as to the malleability of the premise. e.g. if you hold this position and a taliban holds this position and a an israeli IDF trooper hold this position, then there's no way any o you are able to do anything but either say nothing and carry on with violence, or switch to character attacks to cover-up the flaw of the premise that you 'all' hold but have different follow-ups from that same premise.

>Apparently, given your inability to understand the very basic explanation, you are below the bottom of the class.
oh jesus why would you go and say that at the end.. ugh ok ..lol then, and thanks for adding yourself as a proof of the premise of this topic. But it's too off-topic to get into here, and I gave the proofs position in the previous post already.

[Anonymous No.21967912]

>>21954371
Edward Carnby looking ass motherfucker.

[Anonymous No.21968899]

>>21967912
had to goggles cheque that.

That's very Freudian. The human faculty of the discernment of logic is the protagonist of 'Alone In The Dark'.