Some people on this board complain that most discussions here suck. Most people on here though are probably not even aware that most discussions are of very low quality.

The reason most discussions on here suck is that a vast majority of people who post here have not studied any logic at all.

For example most people here don't know even the very basic thing which is the difference between a proposition and an argument. It's ok to start a discussion with a mere proposition. But anyone who wants to participate in the discussion can't just give a counter-proposition, as almost always is what happens here. You need to give an actual argument, which consists of at least two propositions, where one is the conclusion and the other proposition or propositions support the truth of the proposition which is the conclusion.

Pick up a beginner logic book and read it.

There are tons available for free online. These are just a few examples.

forallx.openlogicproject.org

https://lms.yic.edu.et/library/index.php?p=fstream-pdf&fid=943&bid=1180

https://racionalistasusp.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/bowell-kemp-critical-thinking-a-concise-guide1.pdf

https://www.juristpanel.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/A-Rulebook-for-Arguments_compressed.pdf

https://archive.org/details/logicorrightuseo00watt

https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/textbooks/introduction-to-logic-and-critical-thinking

https://commons.libretexts.org/book/human-24312

There are also a lot of good free materials on youtube, for example:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLeamyERJVQLDHH0zijOOpqULKD6yU2Uxe

https://www.youtube.com/@AmateurLogician/playlists

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKI1h_nAkaQq5MDWlKXu0jeZmLDt-51on

One good way to learn and practice logic is to download LSAT tests and do questions on the logical reasoning section, and then google explanations and discussions of the questions.

https://img.cracklsat.net/lsat/pt/pt1.pdf
...
https://img.cracklsat.net/lsat/pt/pt90.pdf

>>508076799 (OP)
Bump for effort posting

Bumping

>>508076799 (OP)
Indeed.

The sticky lists some common fallacies.

Unfortunately an effortpost like this will get buried underneath the 99th hourly incel slide thread.

>>508076799 (OP)
>https://archive.org/details/logicorrightuseo00watt

This is an old book written by a priest in the 18th century. Back then grammar, logic and rhetoric were studied together as one subject. It was called The Trivium, these were the first three of the seven liberal arts, which was the so-called classical education. Logic today has been divorced from grammar and rhetoric, but you need all three. These three subjects are the tools of thought. You can't know how to think correctly without having studied them.

youtu.be/AOcy6RHw7A8

For some reason that file doesn't have a table of contents, but I found one online. The page numbers don't fit though.

The grammar they studied was Latin and Greek grammar, that's why I'm going to study some Latin and Greek, I'm starting with Latin with the book Wheelock's Latin.

>>508077593
>The sticky lists some common fallacies.
It's not enough to read that list. It's common to see people on here who have read it but are no wiser.

>>508078421
Here's a sample.

Bump

Bump

Oh great another logic thread

>>508076799 (OP)
>The reason most discussions on here suck is that a vast majority of people...
...are not ppl
this place is literally a botnet
id be surprised if even half the ppl here were actual ppl nowadays
pre-2016 election cycle this place was quite good because there was still mostly ppl as posters. even the retarded ones were actual ppl and not chatbots (or chatbot-tier ppl)
not so much anymore

>>508076799 (OP)
Unironically good advice no matter your convictions, though i suspect that doing so might unravel some of the commonly held beliefs held here.

Human mammals always trying really hard to pretend they aren't just mammals.

>>508076799 (OP)
People that are unable to engage in discussion have a fault in consciousness, not merely "knowledge of logic". The solution is gnosis.

>>508085244
This is a proposition, not an argument.

>>508076799 (OP)
Okay, mate, will do. Thanks.

>>508085453
OMG, I think I've talked with you in other threads. You are perhaps the most autistic person on 4chan.

>>508085565
This is sarcasm sir

>>508076799 (OP)
we have this

>>508085701
Next to worthless.

>>508085611
Have you studied any logic at all?

>>508085887

https://youtu.be/yJxiWmmJ3dc

Anyway, good initiative OP. Here's a bump.

>>508086966
It is practically worthless. Many people here have read it and are no wiser, they just think fallacies are bullshit because they have no understanding. You are better off studying beginner materials in logic, where you learn the difference between a proposition and an argument, the difference between premise and conclusion etc. Just reading that list is of very little benefit.

>>508076799 (OP)
Most political and ideological discussion is based on emotion. Whatever facts and reason are employed (which isn't much) are in the service of emotional attachment to certain beliefs. Emotional arguments are why political debates come off as shrill and obnoxious.

>>508077593
Dont forget the bbcmongering and trannyposting

>>508087275
People who haven't studied logic are emotional thinkers yes. Studying logic is the remedy.

>>508076799 (OP)
The plebbit spacing is making me want to vomit so I couldn't finish past the first line

There are also books you can buy such as:

Irving Copi, Introduction to Logic

Nicholas J J Smith, Logic: The Laws of Truth

Then there is The Trivium by Miriam Joseph which I've been planning to read for a long time, but it's a 20th century book with a female author, so maybe I'll never read it now that I have found the book by the male priest Isaac Watts from the 18th century.

>>508076799 (OP)
>One good way to learn and practice logic is to download LSAT tests and do questions on the logical reasoning section, and then google explanations and discussions of the questions.
>
>https://img.cracklsat.net/lsat/pt/pt1.pdf
>...
>https://img.cracklsat.net/lsat/pt/pt90.pdf

For your convenience I took the first page of the first logical reasoning section of the first of those two tests, and converted to jpg. This is what those questions look like. Change the url I gave and you have 90 such tests online for free download. Just google "lsat preptest 1 explanations" and similar or part of the text of a question, there are multiple sites which have explanations and discussions of the questions. I have also posted many of these questions on this board in the past where we discussed them but they might not be easy to find in the archives.

>>508087275
It needs to be balanced. A rational argument without emotional elements is autistic and an emotional argument without rational elements is hysteric. Logos, ethos, pathos, and kairos all have their place.

>>508076799 (OP)
tryhard intelectualism
if you cant put it blanky maybe youre just an idiot lmao

>>508086273
You seem to not grasp that I don't care about you, and thus I am not compelled to adhere to the precise rules required for you to understand anything. I'm a human, and I am going to communicate however I _want_ to communicate. If you want to extract information from me, you don't demand that I follow rules. You engage in back and forth. You can propose an idea, and I can propose one back. Neither is obligated to continue.

>>508087243
Fallacies are not a result of logical inaccuracy. They are a result of emotions, which you have none of.

>>508086966
Kek

Most discussions are meaningless.
I am done wasting time here. I am grabbing my sleeping bag and going for a walk. A long walk. I need to clear my head of all this shit now.

>>508091856
>emotion is needed in argumentation
No, click any of the links I posted and read one page today, that's a start.

>>508092064
Click a link and read, or remain in the pit of ignorance, your choice.

>>508092355
I asked because if you have in fact not studied one iota of logic in your life then your opinions about logic are utterly uninteresting.

>>508076799 (OP)
>Some people on this board complain that most discussions here suck.
No shit Sherlock.
That's the downside of full anonimity.
Signal to noise ratio is atrocious will all the master baiters, bots, LLMs, disingenuous retards playing both sides for 'epic lulz' etc.
>Captcha: D00WM
The fucking computerk KNOWS!

>>508093180
>No
The man in your OP pic would disagree. Read one page of Aristotle's Rhetoric today, that's a start.

>>508093674
Politicians, lawyers etc make use of emotional manipulation and deliberate use of fallacies as a means to persuade. By studying grammar, logic, rhetoric you acquire the tools to see through the manipulation. It might be necessary for leaders to use such manipulation because people are dumb, emotional and need to be controlled for society to function.

https://youtu.be/7THG28GprSM

What people here need is to detach from emotions in order to break free from the manipulation. Studying grammar, logic and rhetoric is the way to achieve this.

Studying grammar, logic and rhetoric is greatly beneficial, and this knowledge is suppressed for the masses.

>>508093180
I've studied plenty of logic. I was a fucking computer science major.

Now tell me this: is your penis larger than 8 inches? Because if it's smaller than this, then I won't take your opinion seriously, because you clearly suffer from small dick syndrome.

>>508095271
And yet you don't know the difference between a proposition and an argument. The thing is this, the logic they teach today is for the most part as I said earlier completely divorced from grammar and rhetoric, while in the past these three subjects were one subject. They teach you just enough of logic divorced from the big picture that you can be a cog in the machine and produce, and not what you need to be able to think well. Check out https://archive.org/details/logicorrightuseo00watt, this is how logic was taught in the 18th century, a very different idea of logic from how it's presented in programming etc today. It was the tools of thought.

>>508085887
Yeah I've seen people defend some of them even; it is so retarded. You can tell this post was made back in the 00s when people gave more of a shit about their arguments.

Fuck your logic, swedefaggot. I'm a retard and I just come on here to say nigger, okay? Let me be.

>>508095060
The most logically correct argument is functionally useless if no one can be persuaded of it. Logic is the foundation but you cannot ignore the rest of the structure if you intend to build anything worthwhile.

bump

>>508097170
Again, that's only because people are dumb, emotional, don't know grammar, logic and rhetoric and need to be controlled. They suppress grammar, logic and rhetoric for the masses for a very good reason. But you should learn grammar, logic and rhetoric. Just because others find a good reason to push you down doesn't mean you ought to help them and push yourself down. We are not politicians who need ways to control the masses. We are the masses and need the tools to break out of the spell they have us under. These are two different things. You learn about their manipulation tactics to see through them. Needing the tools to control others is not where we're at, that's chapter 300, and we haven't even started with chapter 1.

bump

>>508099828
I admire your dedication. However, from 80 to 95% of population are so called NPCs, mostly because they don't care about logic or principles. It simply doesn't matter to them.
And as for /pol - maybe 9% of the whole world is White. That also holds for /pol, with obvious implications. What is even worse, there are several actors doing quite a lot to make this place unusable for quality discussion.
Sorry for the blackpill.

>>508101854
What's your point?

This post is wrong:
>>508091856

We don't need to balance emotion into arguments. We need to learn logic in order to detach from our emotions because it's our emotions that we are controlled by. We need to learn how they manipulate our emotions in order to break free from that manipulation.

>>508101854
>However, from 80 to 95% of population are so called NPCs, mostly because they don't care about logic or principles. It simply doesn't matter to them.
NPCs are people who can't introspect. Writing is fundamentally an act of introspection into one's thought process. OP wants to teach skills of introspection, but as others including myself have alluded to, there are emotional blocks to introspection. This is deeper than just "not wanting to". People don't hate introspection; they fear it. They aren't merely lazy; they are driven by fear, which is indicative of a lower level of consciousness.

>>508102571
tl;dr - you can't learn or use the tools of introspection if you're not capable of introspection, which means there are emotional blocks to rationality.

>>508102560
"Just detach from your emotions" is not a solution. You're coming at this from the perspective of someone who has already done this, and you lack empathy for those who haven't.

>>508102571
No. When you learn logic it helps you detach from emotions, and it's emotions you are controlled by. Learning logic detaches you from emotion and from ego, there's a reason the guy who wrote the book I linked from the 18th century was a priest, and one other book I linked was written by a nun, and there's a reason Freemasons in the second degree are informed about the importance of studying grammar, logic and rhetoric.

>>508103050
I'm going to think about what you've said. It is a bit of a chicken and egg problem.

>>508103050
>one other book I linked was written by a nun
I didn't link it but I mentioned it.

Logic: The Right Use of Reason in the Inquiry After Truth
https://archive.org/details/logicorrightuseo00watt
by
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Watts

The Trivium
by
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sister_Miriam_Joseph

https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/503426619

>>508099828
>>508102560
>>508103050
What you're describing doesn't work for the masses, it works for a borderline autistic minority. Those of us who are part of that minority can parse information with little to no emotional investment but that's useless without being able communicate the results to the masses. Aristotle was absolutely correct but you're too cripplingly autistic and undersocialized to understand it.

>>508102571
> This is deeper than just "not wanting to". People don't hate introspection; they fear it. They aren't merely lazy; they are driven by fear, which is indicative of a lower level of consciousness.
Yes, but. NPCs are capable to score 100% in a logic test in school in the morning, and then happily spew incongruities to parrot opinions of their group in the evening, rinse and repeat.
I've seen people getting a headache when confronted with facts properly. I've seen people agreeing with me on Monday, only to repeat the whole discussion ordeal on Tuesday. I've seen people changing their recent memories in order for them to conform to their worldview, rather than to risk facing the reality.
There's a whole lot of research on this, starting from mechanisms like compartmentalization to behavioural patterns like conformation with authority. It's all evolutionary strategies working in small homogeneous high trust societies, but now they're maladaptive for us and work against us. Plus r-selection pressures ...
Meaning, you and I are the scary outsiders who speak dangerous and incomprehensible things, unlike those nice guys in suits on national TV.
TL;DL: If you want a NPC to behave logically, you have to change its environment first.

>>508076799 (OP)
bro no one cares

>>508076799 (OP)
True, but you underestimate how retarded many people are. The only reason I'm here is the occasional chance some intelligent discussion comes up.

>>508076799 (OP)
Half of the posts here are AI.

>>508103568
No it isn't. Most likely you think of it that way because you're brainwashed to think that logic is innate, rather than learned, it's not, otherwise they wouldn't have 8 year long schools in the past where they studied nothing but grammar, logic and rhetoric. They brainwash us to think logic is innate, rather than learned, so that we won't try to learn any. They brainwash us to have a knee jerk reaction that grammar and logic are boring things, when in fact they are the deepest, most interesting and most rewarding things you can study.

https://youtu.be/pP8iUyb9Gn8

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivium

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivial_school

https://youtu.be/BhIIPbO_6xg

>>508086273
This is a question, not an argument. You are being illogical.

>>508076799 (OP)
Also there is a lot of people that just got internet access old and young, and billions of third worlders, even women. Some of them didn't even finish high school. The internet used to be only accesible to high iq, mostly men with a degree related to computers or computer use history.
The iq threshold is so low now that even the religious nut jobs can now access the internet easily.

>>508103815
The way for someone to rise out of their status as slave is to study logic. We are slaves, we are not slave masters. What applies to slave masters does not apply to us.

>>508103984
>NPCs are capable to score 100% in a logic test in school in the morning
They don't teach logic in public schools, nor do they test your knowledge of logic. Yeshivas and Eton College, different matter.

>>508076799 (OP)
Is not because of that, I've in fact study the ancients and even the enligthen ((philosophy)), the problem on /pol/ is all the well poison, spam thread, and constant ((attack)) with bots and stupid tranny/kike/shitskin raids.
That and jannies will always direct threads like this to /bant/ so they die and stuff.
When they not straight up prune, they only archieved spam bot garbage 1pbtid, probably related to selling thread information for le data mining, typical shitskin-kike stuff.
Their system is probably direct to data mining 1pbtid archived threads.
It's not related with what you think, I also try to make threads like that back in the day, but even back then when there was /redpill/ threads and stuff threads pile that would lose for the sloppy spam threads.

>>508076799 (OP)
op is a faggot
that's my conclusion

>>508105602
I studied logic, being a victim of math specialisation since 2nd grade elementary. There were quite a lot of us back then. Long time ago. Hermit that I am, I'm still aware of 0 redpills among my fellows.
Thank you for reading my anecdote. Nowadays it must be even worse.

>>508104971
What is your realistic time frame to impart a meaningful change while we still can, demographics-wise?

>>508104413
Based

>>508106597
The idea that there are lots of people who have learned logic but don't care about logic is wrong, most people have not studied logic.

>>508104971
Myopic cuckold ideology.

>>508107559
No. Again, I'm saying you don't need to "balance with emotion". That is for those who are in the position of manipulating the masses. We need to study what they study yes, but to break free from their manipulation. You've got it wrong.

>>508106597
logic and mathematic are not the same thing, that is actually a mistake, and that's the mistake that cause math for being useless in most cases.
Logic is a instrument of philosophy, it can exist without math, but math cannot exist without logic.
There's many reason for that, one of them is the obvious, how science had developed in the modern times, depending on grants and narratives of people that actually don't understand science or the pursuit of it.
Logic in the philosophical sense is finding the abstract logic, the prose. And that's the reason why both philosophy is dead and science as a whole walk at slow pace, sometimes even walking backwards, because it's all brute-forced without actual logic.
People try to figure it out stuff via brute-force more often than not because they lack the instrument, and if your philosophical logic is weak of course your mathematical logic will be even weaker and that despite all the glorifying ((achievements)) on math, little did it help on the real world.
Is all base on corruption, I've a theory that I'm work on about that and purity too. But it's a side project for me.

>>508107521
Within this sentence, your definition of logic lacks its biological part. Humans are social animals. They behave illogically if it increases their chance to propagate their genes.

Try addressing my time frame question, even though it might seem to be loaded.

>>508076799 (OP)
Most discussions in general suck because the vast majority of the population are morons. The discussions on here are actually pretty high quality compared to the average and keep in mind that's taking into account that lots of people are just shitposting.

>>508108110
Yes, I sinned by simplifying by conflation. Mea culpa.
I agree with you.
> ((achievements))
Kek
Cool it with all the (((achievement))) invalidation.
Three parentheses, not two! There are autists ITT.

>>508108150
Biological part? Don't know what you're talking about.

I don't care about any time frame, because I'm more philosophically inclined than politically inclined, these matters are eternal.

>>508095060
>because people are dumb, emotional
>this knowledge is suppressed for the masses
so whos fault is it that the masses are stupid when knowledge is being withheld from them

>>508108730
> what you're talking about
Genetics and its implications wrt ability and willingness of current and future human populations to learn and utilise logic as you seem to define.
Practical aspects of the matter.
> these matters are eternal
Based.
I too cope by LoAing theogenetics into Platonic existence.
I think I 'm succeeding.

Any defense of Israeli is full of fallacies.. in fact almost all defenses of jews in general fail logic.. is it any wonder jews worship the female persona?

>>508076799 (OP)
High quallity post on my bot invested forum?! How revolutionery!

>>508109798
Neanderthal matriarchy enforced by circumcision after important genes got diluted.
Theogenetics schizobros, we're still winning here.

>>508109276
They are deliberately keeping people in a state where they are more receptive to being manipulated. Part of that is suppressing knowledge of logic. The manipulators have a need for using various tools on the masses and they do. You as being part of the enslaved masses have a need for tools to rise out of that state.

Based Swedish Trivium Poster
Godspeed, friend.

>>508109320
Again, it's not that they have learned logic but don't care about logic, they haven't learned it. Logic is not innate, but learned.

Can logic be learned through meemees?

thinking is too much work anyways to make this easier

>>508111058
Some, but perhaps not much.

>picrel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

>>508110981
Yes, anon.
And I'm saying that vast majority of people will not learn, or will not understand, or will not apply outside their field of expertise, all the beautiful logic there is, unless ...
Unless they will be motivated to do so.
Please refer to my only serious macro here >>508101854 - the biology part.

To understand logic, you need to understand math. That's no problem, system teaches that. No point in having irrational people in e.g., IT. People who cut off their cocks the most BTW. Highly logical and yet, the code might be AAA+++
To use logic IRL, you need to understand yourself and others etc. etc.
You're idealist. No need to persist in persuading me about things we agree about while avoiding practical application.
If your sole aim is to educate posters here, then my point doesn't matter that much, hopefully.
If you want to release our people from slavery, then you have to face real life issues, as posited by others and me before.

tasteful bump

>>508110981
> Logic is not innate, but learned.
Now wait a moment. Beside the standing on the shoulders of giants part, why do you say that?
A priori or not, denying the possibility of naturally born human ever achieving gnosis on their own is false assumption.
It even begs the question where the logic came from if it wasn't discovered, or properly couldn't be discovered by a single individual.
Again, your god of gaps leaking from reality.

sad bump of abandonment

>>508114255
I agree. That part is fishy. Logic can absolutely be instinctive and intuited. If these matters are eternal, then they can be seen as qualities of God (see the Word of God) and since we are made in his image, we absolutely can have logic without having learned logic.

>>508110808
I don't think they have to try to keep people in a state of being more receptive to being manipulated, mate. People were simply made as sheep. We were made to follow and also, we were made to be led. It becomes a problem when we are following man and his distractions instead of our Father in Heaven. Teaching logic is probably useful because it can help us avoid deceitful tactics used by the evil one. We are called to be mature in our thinking (1 Cor 14:20), after all.

>>508116056
That's what I call theogenetics. Basically it's muh magic dirt, magic book etc. except only when it actually happens, probably due to divine intervention. Cue to EMJ, but actually not gay.
It was proven by works stemming from Gödel that we can't understand or act against God(s), if they exist. Ergo, the possibility of muh magic X always has to remain.
And now we're almost completely outside the scientific method, yet there seem to be light there.

logic and critical thinking was probably the single most useful course common core ever made available. im actually genuinely surprised they even offered it. its kind of like that part of the bible where jesus gets arrested with the naked kid and you cant believe jews didnt think to remove it, but then you get blackpilled by nobody being bothered its there. and the same is true here..

>>508090128
1) A.
2) B. (Noteworthy that the reasoning is fallacious)
3) E.

"Studying logic" is gay.

>>508110689
>Neanderthal
it's funny how science seems to confirm this.. when I was in college I got called a neanderthal for expressing anti-feminist points of view.

>>508118079
IDK about science confirming this, my only information about this subject is coming from a meme picturing naked Sarah Silverman. And the one about vampires and domestication of dogs. And the physical similarity, and the similarity in behaviour, and their eschatology and plans for the rest of us.
I'm no Frank Boas though.

>>508076799 (OP)
I would agree, however judging by how many posts are made about one or a few selected topics almost consistently, I’m convinced the real reason why this board is so shitty is because it’s being socially engineered by intelligence groups, groups of people trying to demoralize or very committed schizo’s living on welfare

>>508076799 (OP)
>>508077593
A significant amount of Greek logical argument is what modern redditor academics would call the “slippery slope fallacy.”
>>508085887
Sorry, but you needed a second proposition here :^)

>>508117574
>please only use pathos oriented bipolar models of thinking goy
im just not gonna dumb myself down to the level of jews, niggers and menopausal women is all

>>508118965
>it’s being socially engineered by intelligence groups
That's what the logic autist is saying.

>>508119241
I'm not saying logic is gay. I'm saying the formal study of it is gay. If you had an IQ above room temperature, you'd be able to parse that out.

Language comprehension and intelligence are what determine if you can understand the logic behind an argument, not whether you you flipped through a book.

>>508119081
>A significant amount of Greek logical argument is what modern redditor academics would call the “slippery slope fallacy.”
Could you provide an example?
Note that slippery slope being a fallacy does not imply no slopes are slippery.
The fallacy is only committed if you fail to demonstrate how an action leads to other actions down the road.

> almost a /qa/ methathread
> anons gone
come out, ye black & trans

>>508119251
No he’s saying “I’m really smart I understand logic grrr read the basics reee”

>>508120130
I’ve been drinking and am blanking on the one from the other day. But if you ever go back and read Athenian debate, they largely come down to taking propositions to their most extreme possible conclusions and deciding which of those makes the most sense

Good thread, Swedebro.

>>508120480
I'll take your word for it that's what they wete doing because I have no idea what you're talking about.
Arguing a position in isolation of all mediating factors isn't necessarily slippery slope though. Strawman, maybe, if the exaggerated way it's presented is sufficiently disconnected from what anyone's advocating for but I don't care to nitpick on the topic.
And again, I don't know what you're really talking about.

>>508120480
It's okay to commit preventive genocide.
No one will argue against it afterwards. What are you afraid of, ghosts?

>>508119486
logic involves optimization of thought
optimization means faster processing, more simultaneity
its not gonna be useful to you if youre not an analaytical Noticer. maybe meditation might be more for you. voluntarily underclocking your own cognition, doing less thinking. does that sound nice?

OP, come back
we need to talk about objective morality
reeeeeeeee

bumping for effort but everyone should remember that logic is only a tool. It is the will and the heart that accomplish greatness. Use emotion for the many and reason for the few.

>>508123256
>logic involves optimization of thought
>optimization means faster processing, more simultaneity
Correct. And rote memorization of logical laws and structures is directly antithetical to this.
The moment you're thinking in terms of "these are the premises and that is the conclusion; the structure of the argument is such that the conclusion is supported by this methodology through the given premises; etc..." you are no longer operating in logical processing, but memory and categorization. Doing so is cumbersome and missteps in categorization occur if you lack logical processing capabilities and so you haven't actually improved your logical thinking ability.

>>508123942
>Doing so is cumbersome
Nta, but only if you're not using it for training purposes and to improve the way that you perform. You break that shit down into systems and methodology to train your mind to function correctly without thinking about it. Think about it. Anything new you must learn and it takes time to work through the first steps of establishing good habits, but once you've established those good habits, then it comes naturally.

>>508110981
Wrong. Plato discussed this extensively. You don't even know what could be inside the very point of where you typed this? Move along midwit

>>508123942
Have you studied logic? Do you think you have Latin grammar innate too?

>>508124767
Sure, there is an argument to be made there, which is why I never said improving one's logical thinking capabilities isn't possible. Though I would say most crucial is language comprehension.
Understanding what the person you're talking to is actually trying to communicate is far upstream from establishing the structure of their argument. To the extent that I would say perfect comprehension renders complete ignorance of logical theory irrelevant while perfect logical analysis can be upended by a minor lack of comprehension.

Orthodox Jews study logic at their yeshivas/private schools.

The goyim don't study logic at all.

This is why Jews rule over the goyim.

source:https://archive.ph/ZR5g0

>>508125660
Welcome back, chief.

>>508076799 (OP)
Logic is a dead end, feels over reals

>>508125660
>>508125660
>Have you studied logic?
Little bit.

>Do you think you have Latin grammar innate too?
False equivalence.
One is prescriptive the other is descriptive.

>>508125793
>force children to pay attention
>they perform
Gee. Who'd have thunk.

>>508126096
The logic this is about is intimately connected to language. Grammar, logic and rhetoric used to be taught as one subject.

>>508126526

>>508076799 (OP)
>Op does not suck cock therefore op is not gay

Like that?

>>508126526
>>508126567
See:
>>508125733
If you understand what's being communicated, the logic being employed by such an "unless" statement is trivial.
However, logical theory does not change depending on what language you're speaking. The language being spoken determines how you would structure the logic grammatically.

>>508076799 (OP)
>The reason most discussions on here suck is that a vast majority of people who post here have not studied any logic at all.
Kek, no. Typical midwit thinking. The reason they suck is the vast majority of posters are lazy and uneducated retards, and even most of the smart ones are midwits like you
Actually smart people don't have to 'study logic' - it comes naturally with intelligence

>>508125733
I do not think it is of much benefit to compare the two ends of the the spectrum as the end goal here or even that those two are opposite on a spectrum. A balanced approach is almost always the correct and most realistic approach. Using logical analysis can be a pretty significant shortcut in dismantling flawed thinking and also in identifying a better way to engage with someone. If you don't know how to dismantle flawed thinking, then you are apt to lose any momentum you had because trying to explain something you can't quite put your finger on is going to be a shaky and time-consuming process. In an engagement with a gracious person this might not be a big deal, but a shrewd person will walk all over you.

>>508127079
I'm no expert here, but I wouldn't be surprised if high level logic would illuminate habitual, fallacious thinking and communication in the both of us. Don't fall for your own hubris. There is plenty you can learn and improve in.

>>508126919
OP claims to be logical while failing to communicate his ideas to us, the unwashed masses.
Why are we persecuting him so much?

>>508126919
Trying to divorce logic from the language is rather meaningless, when the interplay between them is the entire thing. But you admit to having studied little logic so there isn't much point in this discussion, you are giving opinions about something you admit to not knowing much about, what you need to do is just give it a try.

>>508127127
>Using logical analysis can be a pretty significant shortcut in dismantling flawed thinking
Well this gets back to the distinction between logical thinking and logical theory.
You probably didn't need it explained to you why ad hominim is flawed thinking, for example. There's probably not a single fallacy on that sticky that you thought was a perfectly reasonable argument before seeing the problem spelled out for you.
Where people falter is when they fail to recognize the flawed reasoning, in themselves as well as others, because it's employed in a less obvious way. And this is an issue that will hit someone who'd rigorously studied the theory just as hard as someone who hasn't.
If you want to get better at recognizing flawed thinking, memorizing syllogisms and fallacies is far less important than practical engagement.

Logic puzzles/brain teasers are a good start. I don't knock them.

>>508125793
>This is why Jews rule over the goyim
False. Jewish rule came from very simple exploitation of specific historical circumstances, their general lack of morality, hundreds of years of political and strategic manouvering, infiltration into finance and other indirect means of societal control and other specific factors. While their education focuses their younger generations and helps herd them into the jewish supremacist sphere, it is not at all enough on its own to overtake Western civilization. Intelligent Aryan speakers will absolutely make jews look dishonest and stupid in a protracted discussion. The problem is that jews have no shame and will just continue on like nothing happened. There is no limit to their depravity.

>>508128218
>Trying to divorce logic from the language is rather meaningless, when the interplay between them is the entire thing.
Disputed premise. Needs elaboration.

>But you admit to having studied little logic so there isn't much point in this discussion, you are giving opinions about something you admit to not knowing much about
Ad hominim. Who I am doesn't change the veracity of my statement.

>>508128546
I'm not interested in discussing the philosophical underpinnings of logic with someone who hasn't studied much logic. I have direct personal experience of the benefits of studying logic and observe a lack of having gained the same benefits in others and I'm sharing this gift for others to make the same journey. Take it or leave it.

>>508129326
We haven't even established how much logic I have studied. "A little bit" could mean a lot more to some than others.
Your reasoning is illogical and you are displaying emotional motivation when you say things like:
>I have direct personal experience of the benefits of studying logic and observe a lack of having gained the same benefits in others and I'm sharing this gift for others to make the same journey
It's the same rhetorical format as an evangelical missionary.

>>508076799 (OP)
/pol/ is pure pathos. You’ll get zero results here. This is a no logos zone.

>>508083015
>Human mammals always trying really hard to pretend they aren't just mammals.

Upboat

I want to refine my mind and conversational tactics, but at the end of the day, it's just Jews.

People are retarded. They need 10 second videos while commenting in all lower case.

>>508130021
what about areté
is there any visible

>>508123942
the language of logic is used to demonstrate logic, theyre not laws you have to follow. such things might come naturally to you. other things you might develop of your own accord using patterns you recognize from other things. but you would not necessarily have incorporated them had you not noticed or become aware of the patterns.
and its not necessarily about you anon. the world doesnt revolve around you, and not everybody thinks in the same manner. logic is crucial across the board. its inherently anti-semitic, which makes it so surprising its available, so there must be some benefit to them, its probably gayI or meme physics related if i had to guess.

what youre thinking of is how they describe it to a layman
but how its actually applied is in mental thought structured, cognitive process at abstractions of thought at the 7th magnitude
it then works for certain real world applications, but if youre going into schizo territory this is all stuff you need to know otherwise you end going full blown jews sucking baby penis

>>508131055
>the language of logic is used to demonstrate logic, theyre not laws you have to follow
Correct. But there are logical laws. Though they, like pretty much any other law, pretty much come down to "no shit" statements:
A = A
A != !A
A = B XOR !B*
*Disputed. Some logical systems omit the law of excluded middle.

>and its not necessarily about you anon. the world doesnt revolve around you, and not everybody thinks in the same manner. logic is crucial across the board
One's capacity for logical thinking is intrinsically linked to their intelligence.
You're right that not everyone thinks in precisely the same way. But logic itself is a universal that is independent of reference frame.

>blah blah blah Jews.
Sure. K. Whatever.

>>508129684
Well I haven't seen much of actual arguments from you for your position. It's kind of dead in the water so what's the point of continuing this discussion? I gave a source that our Jewish overlords study logic here:

>>508125793

They wouldn't be doing that if it were innate would they? I gave many sources for the statement that Freemasons are in the second degree informed about the importance of studying grammar, logic and rhetoric in the image and last link here:

>>508103646

Why would they be informed about this if it were innate?

>This process of analyses and conceptual definition and reconfiguration has been going on for centuries, with each generation building on the work done by the generations that had come before it. It is based on sound and logical principles or as my rabbi friend has it “We study rational principles. It is the logic that is godly. No argument is accepted without absolute proof. When the conclusion is reached, the logic is compelling, unassailable and demanding. The principles are absolute.” This is in fact not too dissimilar from what theoretical physicists do, when they conceptualize particles and processes in order to explain the underlying workings of the universe based on observation. The difference, of course, is what observations are being analyzed and studied: While theoretical physicists may be using the data gleaned from experiments in the Large Hadron Collider, yeshiva students are observing the Talmud, which they believe is a message from the creator of the universe.

https://cross-currents.com/2018/11/23/what-do-they-study-at-yeshivas/

>>508132359
>Well I haven't seen much of actual arguments from you for your position
Then maybe read my posts.

>I gave a source that our Jewish overlords study logic here:
So your argument is that studying logic is important because Jews do it?
Your conclusion does not follow from your premise if that's the case.

>>508131858
if jews thought logically there wouldnt be religious rites which involved mutilating baby penises or putting baby penises in their mouths: yes, or no?

>>508132630
>Then maybe read my posts.
All I've seen is propositions. Nothing backing them up. Hence not arguments. I don't have the answer to your question even though it's an interesting question and we have different positions on it. I think you should keep going in this inquiry but you're not going to get far in it without studying the subject matter itself of the question. You can't discuss the ins and outs of how a combustion engine works without ending up studying well...how a combustion engine works. So keep going.

>>508132359
>I gave a source that our Jewish overlords study logic here:
only showed up 2300 years late to the party
maybe in another 2300 years theyll figure out what the idols were for

>>508133946
>if jews thought logically there wouldnt be religious rites which involved mutilating baby penises or putting baby penises in their mouths: yes, or no?
Incorrect.
>>508134061
>All I've seen is propositions. Nothing backing them up
Would you like me to type in syllogisms? Would you comprehend my argument better that way?
Or are you asking for sources? You do realize logical soundness is independent from factual accuracy, right?

>>508132359
also, i love how theyre pretending to do logic when theyre always operating from the conclusion that the torah is divine truth
you can only be as strong as your weakest link, and jews manage to beat out baby eating abos, poo eating poos, and cannibal war era voodoo witch doctors to become the undisputed weakest link

abrahamism, when you think about it, has always been a sort of 'equity' program where they try to cut everyone else off at the knees, while non-abrahamics try to raise them up like /r/teacher rageposters venting about their frustrations trying to teach to a desegregated classroom

>>508134372
oh!
please provide a logical argument for sucking baby penises as a religious rite
i gotta hear this

gather round anons

>>508076799 (OP)
1: You assume the purpose of this site and board wrongly.
2: Reddit spacing.
3: Wasted.

is he gonna go with "builds character"?
maybe something about "sterilizing the wound"?
what do you guys think?

>>508134898
> gather round anons
round anon reporting in

>>508134898
It seems a lot of you people have bad reading comprehension, so I'll provide a syllogism and see if that's easier for you to understand l:
>almighty creator of the universe told them to do it with promise of rewards
>Jews like rewards
>Conclusion: they do it

If the given information is true, the logic is sound. But you're not disputing the logic.
The dispute is over whether the first premise is true, which is a separate discussion entirely.

>>508135432
so you too are presuming the first premise is logically sound, which is a logical absurdity

you will now have your baby penis sucked on in the next trip round about the poo wheel of dharma

right off the bat, the *sole* creator of reality, strike one
the shape of the earth, strike two
the age of the earth, strike three
jews being chosen for anything other than to be the short bus of the human species, strike four
the list is endless.
(its the same list we use for christcucks)

>>508077593
Yeah it's pretty sad that even the idea of "discussion" on the board gets ridiculed and meme'd into nothingness. Sometimes (most of the time) these people are just coming here to vent.

>>508135973
>so you too are presuming the first premise is logically sound
This statement is a syntax error.
A premise is either true or false. When analyzing the logic of an argument, you assume the premises to be true in order to identify whether the conclusion even follows from the premises.
If the conclusion does not follow from the given premises, then it doesn't matter if they're true or not: the argument is unsound.
If the argument is sound, then it's worth investigating whether the premises are true.

But this is a thread about logic.
You need to pick up a dictionary or something

>>508093180
>no you can't just explain your point of view, you need to conform to my ideological framework
>you need to read and agree with this specific viewpoint or else I will dismiss you with a pejorative and refuse to engage in discussion
>the basedence is settled, this is the only acceptable opinion

>>508136481
>you assume the premises are true
first off, youre not a robot anon
structuring an argument for logical consideration is different than coming to a logical conclusion.

but you seem to be missing that crucial next step, determining if the premises themselves are reliable before accepting the conclusion as reliable.
its important (for normies and machines esp.) before considering an argument that you actually have the preconditionary structure of the premises in place to consider the validity of an argument.
but you, in this sense, very much like jews, neglected the second step. their problem is they are almost always operating from a conclusion, rather than from logically examining its premises in order to arrive there, as a logician would.

anybody can reframe and restructure an argument using a linguistic sleight of hand, but the actual logic part doesnt come in until afterward. logically, you would think youd need to avoid questions not framed as logicians prefer in ma syntax style, but this too is a fallacy, especially in regards to the premise in question, which employs what you would understand as illogicality as a defense mechanism in order to weed out probably jews and the like

>>508134372
>>508136481
You're confusing sound/unsound with valid/invalid. An argument is sound if it's valid and all of its premises are true.

>>508139845
Yeah. You got me there. More of a semantic than a syntax error on my part but you're absolutely right.

>>508139466
Remember: I'm one of the guys arguing that rigorous study of logic is gay. I agree with you on every important point.
But you said:
>>508133946
>if jews thought logically there wouldnt be religious rites which involved mutilating baby penises or putting baby penises in their mouths: yes, or no?
To which I said "no" because they do have logically valid justification. Whether the premises are true is, again, a completely different discussion.