appeal to nature

why do people still fall for this?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because they have not yet read the meme website that puts everything into baby talk so they can pretend to be smart and enlightened on an American incel forum.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >you're no better than them!
      but I am, because I never fell for this.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >the mom says I'm smart fallacy
        I actually implied that you are worse than them.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          im sorry, I didn't know we were all better off with our heads in the sand being fallacious with our reasoning all the time. I was being sarcastic you contrarian moron.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Ah yes, the heads in the sand fallacy

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >still missed the point
            For someone so smart you sure have issues with subtext. Most people are smart enough to realize that being able to accuse others of X fallacy will not improve their life or anything in any way. I was not contrarian unless this thread is actually about the honesty of your mother.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I wasn't trying to one up anyone, it's just terrifying that people do appeal to nature for their reasoning, that's all. maybe the cartoonish image triggered something in your mind. but the fact that people appeal to nature is a problem. I get that it won't improve my life in anyway... except it would if people would stop doing that, because I would much rather live in that world.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Would you prefer people to appeal to ideology for their reasoning? it is far more prevalent and obnoxious and has a fairly major and tangible effect on the world. For the vast majority of people the only time an appeal to nature plays into their reasoning is at the grocery store.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            ideologies aren't things that people appeal to.
            people try to convince you of their world view, they don't just say accept it or die. even early Christians at least attempted to explain albeit in a moronic way.
            I would rather no one appealed to anything.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >ideologies aren't things that people appeal to.
            Are you serious?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Made me post and chuckle. I want to try something.

            ideologies aren't things that people appeal to.
            people try to convince you of their world view, they don't just say accept it or die. even early Christians at least attempted to explain albeit in a moronic way.
            I would rather no one appealed to anything.

            Let's go a step further;

            The purpose of the ideology is not to appeal, but to be reviewed for appeal? So, people don't appeal to ideologies; just the other way around. And, from there, the people deviate off of what appeals to them and express it as ideology.

            Is this what you're getting at?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The way people try to sell you their world view is more often than not filled with fallacies. the world view it self may or may not be consistent or based on fallacies. but the point is that people don't just say (most people, except for absolute morons) that "im right", they try to explain.
            so people don't just appeal to their ideologies directly.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The explanations of their ideology are the appeals to ideology because they can not support or explain them in the slightest, they are just things they believe and functionally all they say is "my ideology is correct." And blatant and direct appeals to ideology are fairly common, "it is the christian thing to do" and the like, every ideology has a pile of such stock appeals to itself.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The implicative assumption that nature is truly and fully understood and the pride necessary to move on that implication, is the start of a vicious cycle.

            You learn, you get better, you stop learning when you're "done", you get hurt; you learn some more, you get better, etc.

            >being able to accuse others of X fallacy will not improve their life or anything in any way
            Eh...? Not with that attitude. :v

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    that fallacy itself commits the fallacy of partitioning human existence from the laws of nature at large.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I think the worst thing people do is separate themselves from nature when it comes to psychological treatment. Zoo animals will get depression and anxiety and other "human" diseases. Treatment can be fixed, instead of SSRIs which make you fat and disabled, people should exercise and fix their living situation.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        This and for human behavior. If a person does something it's prob coming from a biological drive but people create complex theories that don't take biology into account for human action and instead place the blame on metaphysics or abstract cultural norms when it could just as easily be rooted in biological drives.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Isn't any theory, standard, or practice that only views the human body as a fraction of itself, flawed-by-design though?

          There's definitely a consideration for efficiency in solving problems that is, fully necessary to provide solutions at-a-scale confidently, yet has a tendency to totally disregard, cut-out considerations for, imbalance, or damage, the biological, or the psychological. The phrase "Bandaid fix" tends to be substituted for this type of error.

          Thinking too hard about that'll turn you autistic though. It's a tough call, surely.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Not really if it can be the correct answer 9 times out of 10.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So, real world solutions are a case of the ends justifying the means til' the solution stops working. That's not what i'm talking about and, that's just the inevitable consequence of infinitely scaling growth and learning.

            What I mean is; a correct answer that is only called correct, so that a correct answer may exist. Acts of flopping out and taking chaces, on things that aren't even believed by the actors, and are insincere to the fault of being defined as "betrayal on one's self".

            I dunno. I need sleep. It's been fun though. o7

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            One's self is fake and gay. Beliefs are gay and don't exist. There is only now. Everything else is a tool for navigating your environment and sometimes your beliefs don't serve you so they should be abandoned.

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Is there an 'appeal to progress' fallacy?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      of course, it's just a claim at the end.

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Fallacetious fellatio phallus fallacy

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >implying this is the worst thing exhibited today
    The left unironically cannot fathom the issue with appeals to authority, and also are naturally inclined to fallacious thinking in general especially the use of Bulverism.

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Nature by nature is a brute-force competitivity scenario that simply leads to survival of the fittest, fittest being those that can survive in waves. First marine life, then dinosaurs, then mammals.
    Nature simply waits for the next wave of extinction to wipe away failed projects. The only question is if there is enough of the finite time in the universe to come to something that isn't ultimately self-destructive, and if there are enough extinction scenarios at favourable intervals to provide something useful.
    The next step of nature's evolution, which is unlikely but not impossible, is something that improves on the unlikely event of a chunk of rock containing proteins or enzymes crashing on a favourable planet. And we're not there yet, unless Musk embarks on a project that isn't sending a car into space.

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If arguing atheist morality, you always end up with appeal to nature being the only consistent "base" for it
    You have to take evolutionary theory as an axiom, a point 0 that cannot be questioned, or else you cannot build anything atop of it
    Just like religion has to accept god as an unquestionable fact for their morality to not crumble.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      what the frick? it makes a lot more sense to appeal to solipsism. why would anyone go out of their way to worship darwinism?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >worship
        No, that's not really the point, what I meant is "it considers the continued survival of the human species as unquestionably good", even if it has no real basis.
        You take it as an axiom and go from there
        >solipsism
        This is just an opt out from the moral debate, I am talking about building an objective morality here, while solipsism basically just rejects the concept of objective morality completely.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          you can only take axioms if they are unquestioned, the minute an axiom is questioned it would lose it's appeal.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Well yes, it's obviously a fallacy, never claimed otherwise, but to build morality it's one that has to be ignored, which answer's OP's question on why people ignore it

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            why would an appeal to nature be better to an appeal to empathy in that case? appeal to nature is bound to make slaughterhouses. nature ain't good.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      If morality has to appeal to something it is subjective and therefore not morality, morality must be an end in itself

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yet every single system of morality has to appeal to something
        >therefore it is subjective
        Maybe, i'd rather argue it's on a level above human comprehension hence why we can never rationalize it fully

        why would an appeal to nature be better to an appeal to empathy in that case? appeal to nature is bound to make slaughterhouses. nature ain't good.

        But you have to consider empathy IS a natural feeling and therefore appeal to empathy is an appeal to nature when you force the empath to explore his own argument to the fullest
        Also people just resonate with different concepts, the basis for your morality is kind of like your favorite ice cream
        >nature ain't good
        Well I could argue it is, trough nature we experience life, joy, and beauty.
        I don't necessarily agree with an appeal to nature but I can definetly see why someone could be into that

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          except that empathy can contradict nature.
          example, it's natural that things die, it feels bad.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That's not a contraddiction, we feel bad about death specifically because it is our natural purpose to avoid it as long as possible so we can create more life

            Jesus Christ you pseud morality is not morality if it is subjective

            Then morality doesn't exist in any system because it always appeals to something
            It's what I said, yet for some reason you are really really mad

            also;
            I would argue that nature is bad because it brings misery, suffering and death.
            so there you go, this hypothetical opinion wouldn't be better than the one I just said.

            Sure, that's the point, we can argue all day about wether it's good to appeal to nature, I usually don't, but I'm just demonstrating why some people may relate to it, which is what OP asked.
            Also empathy makes us feel sad sometimes, by this logic it's not a better system as you tried to claim before.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No, you said morality is subjective when this is not a logical statement, you should have came outright with the conclusion that morality does not exist. Morality is either objectively an end in itself or it is nothing that can be called morality.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            how would prolonging life fix the issue of feeling bad about death? it's just prolonging the problem, antinatalism makes a lot more sense with empathy as it stops death by not making life in the first place, for example.
            empathy makes us make less mistakes and think about the future, nature on the other hand is a dead end as an axiom. besides it being a fallacy in the first place, if you appeal to it.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >how would prolonging life fix the issue of feeling bad about death
            That's not the point at all, you missed my point completely
            Empathy is a tool used by nature to get a specific reaction out of us
            It is no different to fear, or anger.
            Appeal to empathy can always be reduced to appeal to nature because empathy is part of the human nature.
            I am not arguing life is good, I am just explaining why I think a lot ends up in an appeal to nature

            No, you said morality is subjective when this is not a logical statement, you should have came outright with the conclusion that morality does not exist. Morality is either objectively an end in itself or it is nothing that can be called morality.

            What worth is your definition of morality if it cannot exist in your logic? Consider that I am just reaching the conclusion of what YOU said to me, not arguing that I think morality doesn't exist, or it's subjective, in fact I already said a couple of posts my stance. I don't know why you are trying to get me to defend YOUR argument

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You are a fricking brainlet read more books

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Kek, ok anon, I accept your concession on whatever you are mad at me for, which I still don't understand

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Of course you don’t because you don’t fricking read

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You appeal to books, therefore your argument is subjective, therefore it doesn't exist
            Goodbye anon, it was a fun exchange

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Nature as synonymous with a "fixed paradigm" or a "ecosystem without a contextual influence" is evident enough, and not fallacious. The "nature" of the forest versus the "artificial" city, the "nature" of a niche hobby without the influence of lage-scale social competition, and the "nature" of an invention's creation are very real...hm....what is the word...thought-constructs? Ideas?

            But yeah...nature is as it is observed, and contextual to the observer; that doesn't mean it does not exist.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Jesus Christ you pseud morality is not morality if it is subjective

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          also;
          I would argue that nature is bad because it brings misery, suffering and death.
          so there you go, this hypothetical opinion wouldn't be better than the one I just said.

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Then people like Rousseau and Hobbes alike must have just been writing for shits and giggles. Face facts but most people who cling to the concept of logical fallacies are just wet blankets

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Why do you care about arguing if you don’t care about logic, just assemble your gang and start bashing heads

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >you should not build a house in tornado alley
    >WTF APPEAL TO NATURE NICE FALLACY

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      thats not how this works, you shouldn't build a house in tornado alley cuz you gonna get fricked.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        um that's an appeal to nature sweaty tornados are nature

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >why should I kill this man
    >because animals kill all the time
    This is the actual "fallacy" as found in the wild, structurally the part that's wrong about it is not specific to nature. Making up a special category for this kind of moronation just confuses morons like you.

    >why should I eat
    So you don't die from hunger.
    The reason I give here is a valid appeal to nature. The question is asked in a context that accepts natural appeals as part of the implied assumptions. So does all human existence. When presented with an argument based on this kind of appeal they don't like suddenly pedantic morons pretend all statements must work outside any given context, which no statements do.
    All logical statements have implied conditions, assumptions that must hold for the statement to be true. The structure can always be presented as conditionals, if then.
    If you care about living then eat.
    If you care about reproduction then don't be gay.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >structurally the part that's wrong about it is not specific to nature. Making up a special category for this kind of moronation just confuses morons like you.
      you just assumed this about me, and no the point isn't to say you shouldn't appeal to nature because... nature! it's used when someone argues for it as an inherent unquestioned assumed "axiom".

      >All logical statements have implied conditions
      sure, but that's not the point of the thread, the point is that people directly appeal to nature all the goddamn time, im not arguing against appeals under a context, im talking about point blank appeals, which are unfortunately very common.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >it's used when someone argues for it as an inherent unquestioned assumed "axiom"
        It's used to dishonestly confuse interactions about subjects people don't want to think about sincerely. It doesn't bother anyone until the appeal is used to argue for a point that people are trying to avoid acknowledging in an effort to delude themselves.
        The rules of nature that dictate human life are an implied axiom in every interaction and we can even say using logic is itself an appeal to a natural law.
        >the point of the thread
        Is some reddit homosexual trying to jerk off about how smart he is for understanding a meme concept he has nothing to say about and doesn't actually appear to understand.
        >which are unfortunately very common
        Not in my experience, which suggests the problem is with you. Assumptions are implied and sometimes haven't been formalized. Demanding strict formality is called pedantry. If you can't parse a statement that rests on basic assumptions of life like wanting to live because those assumptions aren't explicitly stated you won't be able to read most things, you'll be functionally illiterate and incapable of connecting to history and most people.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Not in my experience, which suggests the problem is with you
          I posted the OP and I posted it precisely because of how shocking it is that people blankly appeal to it, yes the point is that it shouldn't even be a conversation starter in the first place because it should be obvious but apparently not.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >precisely because of how shocking it is that people blankly appeal to it
            Who? When? Did you dig deeper in those cases or are you really just talking about how you're a dishonest pedant?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            what the frick are you even arguing for? you just came into my thread angry because im talking about a fallacy. we don't even disagree, you're just angry for no reason.
            >Who? When?
            ask anyone, what do you mean who? normies say shit like "because it's natural" all the time.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >because it's natural
            And every time the brain that produced that statement put it together based on some kind of structured process, which you don't want to explore because you don't like thinking, you like finding excuses to avoid it. I asked for a specific example because every example has something to explore, the thing you refuse to do as the stereotypical pedantic reddit homosexual you are.
            Your thread is braindead and I disagree with the premises you demand I accept as common sense. This is the same structure of the fallacious form of an appeal to nature, the thing you're supposedly criticizing but have no insight into.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            oh my god! normies aren't that sophisticated, they mean what they say and say what they mean. you're trying to twist this into some sort of competition because you're angry for some reason. have sex, maybe you'll chill out.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >they mean what they say and say what they mean
            Normies are not that smart, philistinism is too good a state to compare them to, most people are the walking braindead

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You're a walking stereotype appealing to your own personal revelations you refuse to share because you know they'll be demolished under scrutiny. You are the fricking normie scum. It's fine though because morons are natural.
            When a mongoloid says something moronic you can usually help them find some semblance of underlying logic that dictated the firing of neurons resulting in that moronic statement. Our own brain sometimes does fire in moronic ways but we refine the thoughts using the same methods we can use to refine the thoughts of morons we're talking to.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            what the frick are you talking about?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Something actually interesting instead of your stale reddit shit about using pedantry to justify your inability to relate to the world and other people.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            but we don't even disagree on the topic.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >talking about normies
            >in a thread about the "appeal to nature" fallacy
            I'm enjoying this thread too much here. I shouldn't be indulging in this much irony. I didn't know I missed IQfy.

            The below response somewhat applies here too.

            Most seasoned thinking people don't do this
            But in my experience tbh normals do this sort of thing all the time. Online, more than IRL, but when they find out about fallacies they really do start dropping them like it's a magic Yu-Gi-Oh card.
            I'm not saying there's no validity to fallacies but...
            I guess the thing is, logic itself is tenuous, and isn't justified on its own. You need a working theory of logic to even begin evaluating statements. Absent a working theory of logic, what does "that's not logical" or "Yeah, that's logical" even mean?
            Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
            But this is how most regular people use it. And people just nod along. They make an appeal to logic and if you probe them for five seconds, they've never even thought about how logic works, what it is, how it can justify its self. "Those statements don't follow one from the other," ok, why? It's always down to that pesky why

            People don't think too much about whatever becomes colloquial and "logic" is certainly a colloquialism for most people.

            I wish I saw this. Genuinely. I stand by my statement; that it would be endearing to see. This is anecdotally inevitably; as I am biased by personal experience.

            Most people I talk to, being older than me, know of fallacies like damn hawks eying for mice in a 10km field. They may not know what a meme is, or the names of these things, but they will tear your shoddy arguments that you came up with in a fit of evil genius, to small yellow ribbons, before you can smirk. They might even toss in a quick meme that you won't have a chance of getting, unless you sit and pay attention right back.

            Normies are deceptive. Fun to llook at and laugh at, til' they start aiming the cannon at you. Buchowski was a bloody wizard, calling them out pre-internet.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >calls others normies
            >also tells anon to "have sex"
            Hah? What kind of bait is this

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Normies don't have very much sex anymore. I think there's something in the water or health has plummeted so low normal healthy sex drives are disappearing.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Bahahaha, women have tons of sex or just can’t find a man they can still care about, men are just getting priced out

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I don't think that's as true as you think. Most women's sex lives are a lot more repressed / if they are having sex they aren't enjoying it. I'm married and have sex regularly but I remember women put out more than now. I think men and women are more autistic than they've ever been and the average woman should be more fick crazy to boost Dutch birth rates.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Anon women frick a lot they're just fricking criminals and other degenerates because the value system of civilization has been forcibly inverted via mass media by people who want us all to become slaves
            I say this with only 10%, maybe 20% irony

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's advanced memebrain syndrome. If you notice it you're committing the noticing fallacy which is racist.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Ehh? But "assumptions" can't be based on fact; even if it is subjective anecdotal fact, or statements of observation...right? Assumptions are baseless; they lack confirmative facts. Statements on logic can not be assumptive, beause they are grounded to the speaker's views. Am I missing something here?

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Next time a person invokes any fallacy on you, ask them to provide an objective definition of logic, an objective set of standards for appraising logic, and a theoretical framework that justifies their assertions. They'll inevitably look at you wiener eyed, so then just say "tell me what logic itself actually is, and how to determine whether one idea logically follows from another or not."
    They will not be able to do this 9/10. Your average person is a midwit who steals from the world of intellectualism to make their hemming and hawwing sound more legit, but you can always break it down easy as pie.

    They don't get it. At least in my case, I'm a fricking loser, the only thing I've spent my life doing is pondering abstractions. I will frick my own butthole before I let normals think they're gonna step into the only domain I am a master of and shit on the floor. Im a loser in every other area. Don't let them get away with speaking nonsense like they actually understand it.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      wow! you people really are triggered by this aren't you? im just pointing out a problem with society and you guys just demonstrated my point. I mean god forbid someone points out a fallacy because that's too reddit or something.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        not meant for you

        Next time a person invokes any fallacy on you, ask them to provide an objective definition of logic, an objective set of standards for appraising logic, and a theoretical framework that justifies their assertions. They'll inevitably look at you wiener eyed, so then just say "tell me what logic itself actually is, and how to determine whether one idea logically follows from another or not."
        They will not be able to do this 9/10. Your average person is a midwit who steals from the world of intellectualism to make their hemming and hawwing sound more legit, but you can always break it down easy as pie.

        They don't get it. At least in my case, I'm a fricking loser, the only thing I've spent my life doing is pondering abstractions. I will frick my own butthole before I let normals think they're gonna step into the only domain I am a master of and shit on the floor. Im a loser in every other area. Don't let them get away with speaking nonsense like they actually understand it.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Most fallacies have serious problems that render them inaccurate
        But most of the time its just an issue of people having a superficial understanding of how logic works and crying "fallacy!" at times where it doesn't apply.
        Idc if someone calls out a fallacy when it's actually occurred. That rarely happens online tho.
        What's the problem with society that you were trying to point out? I was replying to the OP. Are you OP?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >t. actual factual nietzche
      Oh my god, this is the best post i've ever seen, and it's not a copypaste. Nothing about doing pushups on the deck of a cruiser, or having multiple PhD thesis to your name. Thank you.

      Anyway.

      I'm not sure who, in an actual conversation, would rebuttal by calling the other person fallacious, whipping out the fallacy chart they bought in poster-print size, and explaining the application of the fallacy along with why it's bad. That's raw comedy, and somewhat childish. Know-it-all-y, and almost endearing. If someone did that, I'd be more compelled to give them a verbal headpat, than to flex on their presented nature.

      I've found this knowledge more useful to constructing mental associations really. Understanding those vague discomforts about statements, reviews, and observations, beyond just thinking "I don't like it". Really, fallacy-logic is like meat; you can't use that stuff raw.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Lefties to call out fallacies and end the argument because their beliefs are indefensible so they attempt to evade contesting them as much as possible, sort of like a kid quitting because the rules were not followed. Everyone else takes advantage of an opponents lapses in logic like identifying a chink in the armor, every logical fallacy used is just another chance to make a formal attack.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Woah now, what are you doing? Ideological fencing? Now, you can't call out a fallacy if the argument is "foul" to begin with?

          Almost...in it's nature?

          Honorable, but kinda...there's a humorous thing there, that I cannot define.

          Really, the nature of the fallacy must be examined here. The context, circumstances, or the associated details to the supposed fallacy. If it is true that every logical statement contains implied conditions, how far can you imply before what you say is a lie? There is an implied "boiling point"; wherein one side or another just drops all desire to logically rebuttal, and call the other a liar.

          The more text, the less some people will want to read what you have to say, so you're encouraged to "cut it down". But cutting it down can provide partial truths, and facts appearing to be suspended by belief.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It is just an observation, the leftist will call out a moved goal post and refuse to make either goal, others will see a moved goal post and take the opportunity to make two goals. The leftist is not incited by their knowledge to spread it, they do not seek to enlighten people who have not heard the good word of leftism, they only wish to identify and eliminate the existence of their enemies. The leftist strategy is not to defeat and win over others but to silence and be the only voice. The left does not think, they unionize.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Most seasoned thinking people don't do this
        But in my experience tbh normals do this sort of thing all the time. Online, more than IRL, but when they find out about fallacies they really do start dropping them like it's a magic Yu-Gi-Oh card.
        I'm not saying there's no validity to fallacies but...
        I guess the thing is, logic itself is tenuous, and isn't justified on its own. You need a working theory of logic to even begin evaluating statements. Absent a working theory of logic, what does "that's not logical" or "Yeah, that's logical" even mean?
        Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
        But this is how most regular people use it. And people just nod along. They make an appeal to logic and if you probe them for five seconds, they've never even thought about how logic works, what it is, how it can justify its self. "Those statements don't follow one from the other," ok, why? It's always down to that pesky why

        People don't think too much about whatever becomes colloquial and "logic" is certainly a colloquialism for most people.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Correct.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Next time a person invokes any fallacy on you, ask them to provide an objective definition of logic, an objective set of standards for appraising logic, and a theoretical framework that justifies their assertions.
      I am a midwit and could not define logic more rigorously than "a framework by which a supposition is proven to be true, false, or inconclusive," and the only standards I could define for appraisal being whether the statement can be assessed by observable phenomena and conclusions drawn from it that are in accordance with those observed phenomena.

      As in, the tiger stone from Simpsons. There is a stone, but no tigers. But there are also places with stones and tigers. It is thus likely that stones do not deter tigers, but there is no proof that this stone happens to have a powerful deterrent effect on tigers without exposing the tiger to the stone. But tigers also do not roam freely in the United States, it would seem there is a confounding factor at work and thus we would need to expose a tiger to the stone to verify the validity of the tiger stone. However, I would also not bother to waste my time testing this, as stones in general do not deter tigers.

      I would be interested in seeing more posts from you on this matter. Please continue.

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Appeal to fallacy fallacy

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Appeal to fallacy fallacy fallacy

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      literally what theyre doing with some of these fallacies, including this one.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Appeal to what they are literally so ng fallacy

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's probably more convincing in an age of technology where there's a disconnect from the natural world

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    /// There's a reason the pang of loneliness hurts so much /// Incomprehensibly twisting lanes of swarming tenements stood cheek by jowl beside the villas of the rich /// Financial institutions are still reeling from the blow /// I was nervous, but seeing her allayed my fears /// Their family business is a rinky-dink operation /// I don't understand this form - it's all couched in legal terminology /// These countries are on the brink of cataclysmic famine /// The government has turned a minor local problem into a full-blown regional conflagration /// There's a famous statue by Rodin, which shows the soul of a young woman striving to break free of the flesh of an old crone /// He gathered up the twigs and cast them into the fire /// Educational reform was one of the main planks of their election campaign /// He looked unusually chipper this morning /// All the rest is not evidence, it is just scurrilous gossip and rumour /// Trying to read between the lines of CEO departure statements is a longstanding parlor game for investors, journalists and academics who study succession /// Our fashion editor gives you the lowdown on winter coats for this season /// Sarah was squalling in her crib /// The stilted conversation turned to whether horse-drawn carriages were superior to riding on camel, horse or elephant /// He started issuing peremptory instructions /// Cut it out, you two – I'm tired of listening to you argue! /// The lift is driven by hydraulics /// Bubbeleh, you've got to stop stressing about what other people think /// Whether they had been successful or not was a moot point /// She tried to hit me up for a loan till payday, but I didn’t have any money to give her /// The president's trip had all the trappings of a state visit /// It's free, unfettered window access and someone's already pulled up the blinds /// The four men were killed after a summary trial /// The bus drew up in the village square and disgorged its passengers /// Each guest had to pony up $40 for the meal /// Opening with a musical and lyrical prelude, this symphonic composition was to end with a postlude ///

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      And yesterday you gays tried to argue that Pynchon writes better than the schizoposters here, please!

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You can justify murder without this.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I don't see why murder needs justification, it happens with or without reasons or metaphysics.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        All the actions of men can be justified or not.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I think justification is taken after the fact for everything. I think the ancient world's view in which the gods were at fault if anyone did something irrational is better and closer to the truth. Not that I don't think people have personal agency, I just don't think people are using metaphysics or rationalizations to justify actions before they make them just afterwards so justification just takes the place of the gods

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Fwiw tho I'll say this
    My main impetus for chastising normals when they engage in fallacy talk, or whenever I see them venturing down High Minded Hill and start using concepts they don't have an holistic grasp on, is not spite or resentment. There's some there, I try to be aware of it and ameliorate it, but my main motive is to keep normals as pure as possible for their own good.
    I really have spent my whole life thinking and not doing much else. I wanted to know what the answer to everything was. Like, the Real Answer, the root of truth and reality.
    And what I learned is nearly the entire world of intellectualism is fundamentally useless in terms of telling humans what to do, how to lead meaningful lives, how to be moral, how to have a good world to live in. It can be useful as a tool for material transformation (science) but that's really about it.
    When I see normals start fricking around with logic, I like to remind them that logic can barely be justified as a concept, because you need to flesh out both an epistemology and metaphysics before you can even start using logic in a way that is justified logically. You basically need to develop an entire philosophy to justify your own use of logic, which means you're already operating in a self contained bubble of analysis where it logically justifies itself by virtue of a brute fact that will ultimately make no sense upon further scrutiny.
    Most of intellectualism is legit nonsense, it is the Wizard of Oz; don't look behind the curtain.
    All the emotional connection and goodwill normals have in their hearts is worth more and will generate better results than any intellectual or "rational" concept ever could. They are better when they just speak from their hearts. And they don't realize the whole world of Intellect INC is a bunch of people saying things that literally cannot be supported at their core, to impress each other.

    Consider Chris Hitchens who developed a dogma of fundamentalist, strict and harsh principles in response to religious fundamentalism, strictness and harshness, then clapped at himself for being such a good public intellectual; then cheered on the Iraq war and used his big brains ideas to justify doing so.

    Where as a street shitting normal may not be able to articulate big philosophical ideas like Hitchens, but will just go "idk man, somethings up, the gov lies and a lot of innocent people will die, that's not worth it" if they're just using "common sense" and their heart/gut

    Nearly every great organized atrocity in this world was justified intellectually, and brought down by appeals to basic, childlike emotions of conscience

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Nice blog post, anon. Did it take you a lot of time to write it?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No it took me hardly any time at all.

        Logo centric fallacy.

        It's not really a fallacy so much as a position

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Appeal to not really a fallacy fallacy

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Appeal to I fricked ur mums bum fallacy

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Appeal to me fricking your bloodlines butthole fallacy

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Logo centric fallacy.

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The only people I have ever seen to take these “logical fallacies” seriously are plebbit dimwits

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Appeal to taking “logical fallacies” seriously fallacy

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The important thing with fallacies is that they are based on certain metaphysical assumptions. If we assume that nature was created by god, and that what is created by god is good, then nature is good.

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I possess the ultimate argument: a loaded handgun.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *