You need to study logic.

>>511309849 (OP)
yeah ty.

>>511309849 (OP)
learning to program has the same effect and more practical applications in the modern world

>>511309849 (OP)
It's self defeating

>>511309849 (OP)
Op is a faggot if and only if he posts

>>511311192
Never studied programming, but I've met people who did study programming and who were not good at argumentation. I've been thinking about studying a little programming to see what it's about, but I think that the logic they study is divorced from grammar and rhetoric, and that's the problem, you need all three subjects as a unified system, grammar, logic and rhetoric.

>>511311249
What? Why?

>>511311192
It really doesn't, people are not computers and will not respond the way you expect 100% of the time to accurate inputs.

>>511311528
you're probably right about that. i program and i read a lot, both fiction and non fiction. fiction is proven to increase your theory of mind. i think, for me at least, that replaces studying rhetoric or formal logic

>>511309849 (OP)

logic - gil co - girl con

>>511311613
formal logic has nothing to do with people, it's about forming a theoretical foundation for analysis and argumentation. arguments don't need to be with other people, they can just be on paper

>>511311613
Plus, programming is so fucking basic compared to the real world. Programming is simple, very few inputs. To use logic on a high level you need hundreds of inputs, thousands of inputs to reach a single conclusion.

The real winners, HF autists, with superior IQ focused in logic and reasoning. The HF part allows you to be minimally socially awkward. The autisim part allows to gather more inputs than anyone else. And the high IQ focused on logic and reasoning, allows you to put together all those inputs to come to a correct conclusion almost all the time, no matter the subject.

TLDR: Autism wins.

>>511309849 (OP)
How come all those philosophers/narcissists were all little boy booty bandits? I've never once learned anything useful or that I could apply to better my own life from reading their bullshit. Plus it's not good form to take advice from soft handed, "men" who've never so much as been in a playground fist fight in their life. That's why I don't listen to you guys as funny as you can be sometimes.

>>511311646
>reading fiction is a replacement for studying rhetoric or formal logic

>>511311328
Who makes the steel?

>>511309849 (OP)
What is truth?

>>511312048
Steel is made from blood of your enemies, smelted in the fires of their burning civilization.

>>511311866
Everyone was a little boy booty bandit pre 1900, because everyone was red pilled and slavery was a modus operandi

>>511311192
>learning to program has the same effect
It really doesn't unless you're programming in Coq or Idris or something. Most programs are buggy precisely because normal programming involves constant nonsequiturs and logical leaps based on implicit assumptions. Kinda like anything else practical and relevant in the real world where you need to deal with the complexities of reality and solve problems. OP is a massive retard.

>>511312534
That's how to make shitty steel, not who makes it.

>>511311646
I don't know much about theory of mind and I don't know what it has to do with grammar, logic and rhetoric. Fiction is good, the Greek classical literature and Shakespeare etc are certainly full with grammar, logic and rhetoric, but I think you still need to study grammar, logic and rhetoric. Also grammar in the past wasn't the hollowed out thing we know as grammar today, it was a much deeper more philosophical thing. Grammar, logic and rhetoric are the tools of thought, and they have deliberately been removed from us to make us manipulable.

https://archive.org/details/logicorrightuseo00watt

>>511312837
>stabs you with the shitty steel
you were saying?

>>511313065
Sucks for you i was wearing armor made from not shitty steel because my civilization allows for my blacksmiths to become talented while soldiers keep training.

>>511313439
Oh yeah? Who do you think I made the steel from (your buddies)?

>>511311866
Actually I read something somewhere about pederasty among the ancient philosophers. I couldn't believe it. Anyway I don't care about any of that. Could be true, could be false, makes no difference. I care about what was actually written in the works. If those who wrote it ate babies for breakfast or not is totally irrelevant to the substance of the text. That's one of the first things you learn when you start studying logic.

>I've never once learned anything useful or that I could apply to better my own life from reading their bullshit.
You haven't studied logic.

>>511313640
From nothing because a shitty barbarian doesn't get good steel, he dies alone in a hut in the woods. My friends sit behind sturdy walls making enough food and quality equipment so i can specialize entirely in fighting and still live somewhat comfortably because they understand the importance of not dying.

>>511309849 (OP)
Well, my coke fueled first philosophy teacher tried to. Never got the grasp of it, but that teacher obliterated my faggy soul. I was an absolute idiot teen full of leather spike bracelets and a fucking anarchy pendant. After the first class I ditched all of it. He is to blame that my ass ended here in /b/ in the golden arc.

I hope The Lord has you under your wing, you coke fueled degenerate. You did something.

>>511313722
>You haven't studied logic.
Neither have you.

Reminder that if you give this retard a problem what requires logical reasoning to solve, he will screech that it's not "real logic".

>>511313065
>ACK Godamn you Ahmed.
>Heres a pic of Muhammed sucking my dick ahahahACK.

>>511313919
You may have defeated me, but in the end, you and I are the same. Steel triumphs.

>>511312915
I think old books are where the good stuff is. 4chan can be useful sometimes, I was recommended that book on here. Here are two other old books I've been recommended on here which I plan to read.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port-Royal_Logic
https://books.google.com/books?id=IcgAAAAAMAAJ

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

>>511311528
>think that the logic they study is divorced from grammar and rhetoric, and that's the problem
Grammar and rhetoric is what you hide behind when you have no logic.

>>511314038
Sounds like you were always destined for that. Even choosing a philosophy elective in the last couple decades was a confirmation of being pozzed
What the fish chomper says of logic is true but your best bet would be to learn other languages and do it in their countries. russian, greek, kiketongue etc

>>511311866
most of the greek philosophers were not soft handed a lot of them served xenophon, plato not sure on socrates

>>511313722
>If those who wrote it ate babies for breakfast or not is totally irrelevant to the substance of the text.
No it's very relevant. The same pathology that gives birth to degenerate behavior could give birth to a seemingly logical yet fundamentally perverse line of thought that is too clever for you as the reader to falsify. Thus you will end up adopting some retarded views because they have internal logical consistency in spite of being against nature itself.

Don't overestimate your own ability to spot logical inconsistencies spanning from subject level to meta level. No one is infallible, but the sane are less fallible than the perverse. Only accept logic from sane and well adjusted people.

>>511314593
Don't know what you mean by that. People use logical fallacies deliberately as a rhetorical tool. Regardless of other people's level of knowledge of grammar, logic and rhetoric you benefit from studying all three. They used to be, and need to be, studied as a unified system. Read picrel, which is from this book >>511312915. You see there that what they referred to as logic in the past is in fact what we call grammar, logic and rhetoric today. Operations 1 and 2 there are in the domain of grammar, operation 3 is what we call logic, operation 4 is what we call rhetoric.

But hole

>>511315094
>No it's very relevant. The same pathology that gives birth to degenerate behavior could give birth to a seemingly logical yet fundamentally perverse line of thought that is too clever for you as the reader to falsify. Thus you will end up adopting some retarded views because they have internal logical consistency in spite of being against nature itself.

>Don't overestimate your own ability to spot logical inconsistencies spanning from subject level to meta level. No one is infallible, but the sane are less fallible than the perverse. Only accept logic from sane and well adjusted people.

OP absolutely BTFO. First intelligent post seen on this board today.

>>511315196
You said that it is a problem when logic is separated from grammar and rhetoric, when in most cases separating logic from grammar and rhetoric will only make it harder to obfuscate illogicality and come with no downsides. People who are less sure of their views will buff them up by using neat grammar and clever rhetoric. Yet a simple yet true logical statement will stand on its own.

>>511312713
Based fellow coq and idris Chad

>>511315094
Nope, you don't know any logic and you need to study logic, just as I said in the OP, so thanks for proving my point. Begin by listening to this from the timestamp.

https://youtu.be/U3Jm8zF7bJ8&t=2543

>>511309849 (OP)
Logic is great, until biology walks in.

>>511311646
Would you care to elaborate why you think theory of mind is relevant to logic?

>theory of mind refers to the capacity to understand other individuals by ascribing mental states to them

Because I think it doesn't have much to do with it, and is perhaps even antithetical. Ascribing emotions to the person behind words is antithetical to logic.

>>511309849 (OP)
True, thru logicgates we have found god.

>>511315728
The real world is not an academic setting. For a person with a realistic understanding of the limitations of their own cognition, it is justifiable to ignore even seemingly logical advice from deranged people due to the aforementioned reasons. If the options are ad hominem or survival, are you saying you will not pick survival every time?

WHY do we need to study logic? And more than that, why do we need to watch Jewish-narrated videos about logic? The academic, strictly theoretical logic you are representing brings no practical value to almost anyone's life. It is a perversion unto itself, and even worse, it is even now as we speak being used as a weapon against the people you love the most.

>>511315540
Well, we're kind of talking about different things.

I'm saying that logic as it's taught today is as many things we're taught today a hollowed out version that's given to the goyim to make them able to be a functioning part of society, a cog in the machine, but it's not giving them the tools of thought. It stems from the Prussian school system, the tools of thought of a classical education are only given to like 1% of the population or something, the political class, even doctors and engineers etc are not in this section of the population.

What you are talking about has some merit. But I have two points regarding it. Firstly as I said, what OTHER people do with their grammar, logic and rhetoric is only partly related to what YOU do with your grammar, logic and rhetoric, and I'm mostly concerned with the latter, you apply this knowledge when you read books by people who died hundreds of years ago, so other people are kind of uninteresting in that sense, don't know if I'm getting the point across. Secondly, you are relegating grammar and rhetoric to be ONLY something which they are not. Grammar, logic and rhetoric are interconnected, and are the tools of thought. You can think of it as short, intermediate and long modes of conveying meaning in a text or speech. Grammar deals with the meaning in a short collection of words, such as a part of a sentence. Logic deals with the meaning in a longer collection of words, such as a sentence, or a few sentences. Rhetoric deals with the meaning in an even longer collection of words, such as a paragraph, a verse, a chapter etc.

>>511316593
>WHY do we need to study logic?
To selectively question narratives (((they))) dislike. Pattern recognition? Oy vey, more like confirmation bias, goy.

>>511315728
>you need to study logic
>proceeds to send a video of INFORMAL fallacies
fuck me dead, no one here is 15 years old.

>>511317881
All informal fallacies are fake. When you accuse someone of making an informal fallacy you're essentially strawmanning what they actually said into an implicit formal fallacy.

>>511318079
Oh you're the same moldovan from another thread the other day, I tried to ask you a question but the thread got closed down.
Are you the same moldovan that responded to this thread I made?
https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/450732547/#450732547

>>511316593
It's clear that you have not studied any logic at all, and yet you are making statements about logic, with nothing backing them up.

We need to study logic because it is the tools of thought, we don't have those tools innate, nor are we given them in school or elsewhere, and as a result we don't know how to think correctly. It has a very practical value to everyone's life, you are not backing up your statement that it doesn't with anything at all. Perversion? What? Yeah those who have studied grammar, logic and rhetoric use this to control us, and we are receptive to it precisely because we have not studied grammar, logic and rhetoric, and it's precisely to break free from this manipulation we need to study grammar, logic and rhetoric. Study logic, you need it, you're just spouting nonsense, which is what happens when someone has not studied logic.

>>511318251
Boy, it's been a long time.

>>511318420
It sure has, hope you've been well.

>>511311192
>programming and philosophy are equivalent
You need to learn logic.

>>511318568
>i can't into curry-howard

>>511318518
You too, anon.

>>511317881
What's your point? I posted a timestamped video, at the timestamp it talks about ad hominem. Are you denying that ad hominem is a thing? What does being 15 years old have to do with anything?

>>511311249
/thread

>>511318304
>We need to study logic because it is the tools of thought, we don't have those tools innate
Only 80 IQs like you need to have basic logic externally programmed into them. Those of normal intelligence implicitly apply logic all the time. The formalization of logic and the categorization of reasoning into formally valid or invalid was an innovation but it has minimal bearing on real-life reasoning.

>>511318785
Explain why muh "ad hominem" is a fallacy. Protip: you will ignore this post because you can't.

>>511317480
Fair enough.

>>511318304
Very well then.

>>511309849 (OP)
Your rabbi taught you everything you need to know regarding rhetoric and argumentation…I suppose you should have paid closer attention in the yeshiva.

>>511318304
If you've ever read Freud, Bernay or some other relevant figure let's say the mastermind behind the Tavistock Institute, these people are logicians nor have they ever picked up a book teaching them logic, they don't control you using logic because most people use System 1 thinking rather than System 2.
Logic is very necessary though within a debate to win and look good Infront of an audience but remember the realpolitiks doesn't change because some silver tongue right winger defeated destiny in a debate or vice versa.
Also when you approach a debate on the assumption that you're going to just use pure logic and reason, you'll end up like every postmodernist deconstructionist that has ever existed.
Point being is people don't need hyper rationalism in order for the obvious things to be justified, take individualism as a great example where pure logic and reason will leave you besides maybe some Hegelian absolute idealism nonsense.

>>511311528
Logic as in the chain of events make no sense for people who program their own logical chains

Imagine you program the following sequence

Donkey, zebra, cinnamon roll

You may think the logical third step is horse or an animal, but you are not a programmer

>>511318079
>All informal fallacies are fake.
What? You're a known troll. You literally posted about the motte-and-bailey fallacy yesterday.

>>511258746

>>511311328
>said the guy that lost two world wars and by piety wasn't exterminated

>>511319173
>motte-and-bailey fallacy
>fallacy
Not a real fallacy. Just a persuasion tactic. Also see >>511319099. You will ignore this post.

>>511309849 (OP)
why?, the world is illogical, politicians lie... if we were logical we would kill politicians, some... a lot of them... maybe even all.

>>511318611
Most areas of Philosophy don’t involve writing formal proofs.

>>511318785
You can spot an ad hominem? That's really cool bro.
Let me know if there is an ad hominem within this example I give below;
Person A: All x are y therefor all y are x.
Person B: No you fucking idiot that would be like saying all German shepherds are dogs therefor all dogs are German shepherds.

>>511311528
we dont know that, maybe the person you talk about was a retard, maybe you're retarded... maybe both of you are retarded.

>>511319262
stfu, you're moldovan

>>511319322
Oh. I misread his post. Not sure what he's on about with equating philosophy and programming. Who did that?

>>511309849 (OP)
Isn't logic simply yes or no reasonings to avoid incoherences? Why would you need to study a principle so primordial to the Human mind if you aren't mentally deficiant?

>>511319137
They have certainly studied logic. As I said they use our lack of knowledge of logic to control us.

>>511309849 (OP)
>logic
It comes pre-installed with most people. We call it common sense. Sucks that your software is apparently the cucked version

>>511319773
Basically all the Socratic philosophers disagree with you, these were made from the observations of ancient greece and I don't think our modern day situation has gotten any better.

>>511319347
Here's a more fun example:

Retard: [makes retarded statement]
Non-retard: ok, retard
Retard: that's a heckin' ad hominem fallacy REEEEE
Non-retard: calm down, just because you're a retard doesn't mean you're wrong

Spot the ad hominem. :^)

>>511319773
>>511319962
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assemblywomen

ancient greeks knew

>>511319347
Again, what's your point, you still haven't addressed that. The guy I was replying to was committing ad hominem, it's one of the first things you learn about when you study logic, I told him to begin his studies of logic by listening to the timestamped video which teaches what ad hominem is. Again, what is your objection exactly?

>>511309849 (OP)
Why? Nobody is logical, and nothing in public discourse is logical. Logic is a currency with no value in today's society.

>>511320248
Did my example have an ad hominem, yes or no?

>>511319962
Well thank god for the ancient Greeks figuring out that any thing is itself, that something can't be true and false at the same time, and that (under normal circumstances) something can't be neither true nor false.

>>511309849 (OP)
get this disgusting unironic shit out of my shitposting board IMMEDIATELY!

>>511320248
Explain why it's bad to commit "ad hominem". Use proper logic. You will ignore this post because you can't.

>>511319576
What logic is is summed up in this picture: >>511315196

As I said earlier what they meant by logic in the past is what we mean when we say grammar, logic and rhetoric today, and this is the meaning I use most of the time, ie The Trivium.

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

I also gave an explanation here >>511317480:
>Grammar, logic and rhetoric are interconnected, and are the tools of thought. You can think of it as short, intermediate and long modes of conveying meaning in a text or speech. Grammar deals with the meaning in a short collection of words, such as a part of a sentence. Logic deals with the meaning in a longer collection of words, such as a sentence, or a few sentences. Rhetoric deals with the meaning in an even longer collection of words, such as a paragraph, a verse, a chapter etc.

>>511320651
what good is an ad hominem for reaching consensus on a topic ?!

>>511309849 (OP)
>I conclude that the Aristotelian doctrines with which we have been concerned in this chapter are wholly false, with the exception of the formal theory of the syllogism, which is unimportant. Any person in the present day who wishes to learn logic will be wasting his time if he reads Aristotle or any of his disciples. Nonetheless, Aristotle's logical writings show great ability, and would have been useful to mankind if they had appeared at a time when intellectual originality was still active. Unfortunately, they appeared at the very end of the creative period of Greek thought, and therefore came to be accepted as authoritative. By the time that logical originality revived, a reign of two thousand years had made Aristotle very difficult to dethrone. Throughout modern times, practically every advance in science, in logic, or in philosophy has had to be made in the teeth of the opposition from Aristotle's disciples.

>>511320658
Here's the table of contents for that book, which for some reason is missing in that file. The page numbers don't match though.

>>511320165
"the male is by nature superior, and the female inferior; and the one rules, and the other is ruled"
Aristotle has a similar take in his book "The Politics" Lacedaemonians were idiots for expecting their women to be able to uphold the institutions while they were away at war, massive mistake.
I was referencing Plato's experience with the lover of art, etc and the totem pole of knowledge, the level at which people are operating which he argued was Eikasia and Pistis. (Eikasia - Illusion, Pistis - Belief, Dianoia - Mathematical reasoning / first principles, Noesis - Intellect)

>>511320774
scary how accurate it is, for a text thats fucking 2300 years old.

>>511319773
Wrong. Answer this question, have you studied logic at all? Exactly. Only people who haven't studied any logic at all say what you just said.

>>511320691
>what good is an ad hominem for reaching consensus on a topic ?!
Degenerates work off of degenerate premises. You can argue with them all day and accomplish nothing beyond normalizing degenerate lines of thought, if only by enabling comfort through familiarity.

>>511320873
>scary how accurate it is, for a text thats fucking 2300 years old.
Women have been around for quite a bit longer than that.

>>511309849 (OP)
No, i need to study aggregate flop reports

Swedes are gay,
OP is a Swede.
Therefore, OP is gay.

>>511321034
and women psychology apperantly hasnt changed one fucking bit. women were always the fucking freeloaders of civilisation building.

>>511319347
And to answer the question, no, that's not ad hominem.

>>511309849 (OP)
I have. What do you want to know?

>>511321058
Nice. But here's a real logic problem for real logicians:

You are given the following premises:
- Kikes always lie
- Kikes say all Swedish women suck nigger dicks

Which of the following can you logically deduce?
a. Only niggers still live in Sweden
b. At least one Swedish woman sucks nigger dicks
c. Swedes are not extinct yet
d. Swedish women don't suck nigger dicks

OP can't solve this.

>>511311192
Lolno. Not at all. Programming is semantics at best. Philosophy is systemic design, more making the operating system than massaging the inputs.

>>511320376
no, now you answer my question

>>511320873
Well it all starts like this which is at the root of most of our problems IMO:
Feminism ignores ontology, (the study of being) which defies the very feminist belief that men and women are interchangeable widgets.
As separate sexes our very nature in being is different, this is why the stereotypes exist. They exist because the actual root in which is a man and which is a woman is totally different to one another and so when feminism take these loaded terms like patriarchy what’s ignored by feminists is nature, not nature as in the natural world but rather the nature of what the thing actually is.

Men and women are not the same thing and because of that we have a different telos, a different purpose.

The nature of women is to make children, this must be the case because there is no other way they can be made, it is the most apparent observation that women that defy their own nature are the ones going to be more miserable than not.

Anything that devolves away from its own purpose tends not to be very happy.

Feminism has impacted the birth rate and has pushed child rearing to later stages of life at the consequence of putting their most fertile years behind them in the pursuit of supposed fun.
To prove this simply, if you can have the procreative function and all of the fun that comes with it without the side effect of children a lot of people will opt to do that because of hedonism, society is now devolving into materialist nihilism because there is no higher pursuit for mankind.

People are looking for a sense of self rather than an extension of family.

>>511321149
E) Kikes dont know anything about sweden or niggers or dicks and are lying.

Eros is the blindspot of the logician. Logic is sterile. Logic gives birth to technology. The "irrational" heat of selfishness and passion is what gives birth to biological lifeforms. Logic chuds will cope but it's true. Logic is still amazing but it's overrated by geeks.

>>511309849 (OP)
>You need to
You should. Not "need" considering it isn't necessary to survive or even live.

>>511309849 (OP)
Bad things should be removed.
Niggers are bad.
Therefore niggers should be removed.

>>511321213
Correct, my point was just to say informal fallacies is something I assume everyone has learned about by now if they engage in politics on a weekly basis, if you still haven't gotten past informal fallacies just download a PDF of How to Win Every Argument: The Use and Abuse of Logic by Madsin Pirie.
But most people are past that point and for instance abortion debates as example don't even use informal fallacies like the continuum fallacy anymore, it's way beyond all that now.
If you want to be a philbro you can but you might end up a deranged lunatic.

>>511321376
I don't think you have studied any logic.

>>511309849 (OP)
Fuck you. I'll do what I want.

>>511311249
There's an old saying amongst philosophers: "Logic is a whore, she'll give anyone a ride." Most people shouldn't bother studying logic because they're simply too stupid to grasp it and apply it properly. Midwits will tirelessly memorize the most common logical fallacies, but because they lack the proper rational faculties, they'll falsely label an argument as fallacious because they don't actually understand either what is being argued or they don't really understand what the common fallacy actually means and why such arguments are fallacious. A good example is that leftists often accuse right wingers of making appeals to nature when it comes to topics of race, gender, or morality when what is actually being argued is not that x thing is moral because it is natural, but rather that if a certain thing is an immutable fact of our nature, it's retarded to design a system of organization that completely ignores that or worse, tries to deny that those facts exist. Ocean currents are completely amoral in nature, but understanding which way the currents move and why is the difference between making it back to shore or drowning. And it would be immoral not to advise swimmers of the currents if you knew about them and they did not. TLDR; studying logic gives retards an air of intellectual competency they don't deserve and enables them to mislead people.

>>511309849 (OP)
American students should read the entire Summa Theologiae by the 7th grade.

>>511321577
No, it's necessary, and getting more so every day.

>>511321705
Are you denying that the Finn I was replying to committed ad hominem?

>>511321910
Elaborate

>>511322027
Notice how you are unable to explain why the Finn's logic is fallacious beyond making an appeal to logical fallacy fallacy. :^)

>>511322027
I don't read what Finnish people have to say, just like the French.
I can't take them seriously, so idk.

>>511321900
Our Western Heritage has been hidden from us.

>>511321705
>everyone has learned about by now if they engage in politics on a weekly basis
>But most people are past that point
no
>for instance abortion debates as example don't even use informal fallacies like the continuum fallacy anymore, it's way beyond all that now.
really no idea what you're talking about

>>511321849
Every /pol/ "argument" is just a long sequence of nonsequiturs so invoking logic proper seems completely moot. Might as well automatically dismiss every post.

>>511321900
It is a tough read, I would wait before 11th grade or so.
Even the white brain can't grasp abstracts of that level before at least 16.

>>511322387
No, not really. Just the poor arguments from jeets.

>>511322535
Yes, really. If you think there has ever been a proper argument presented in favor of your political ideology you're delusional.

>>511322271
>no
yes
>>511322119
Wait until pewdiepie over here finds out what debates look like beyond informal fallacies, bro will just give up and I don't blame him.

Make Istanbul Byzantium Again

>>511321900
>>511322170
You sound like public school teachers. We spend thirteen thousand hours in school and learn absolutely nothing.

>>511322387
Very true, I made the mistake also of trying to get into a serious debate with people on this board just for them to turn around 1 minute later and say I'm using jewish pilpul logic, then I realized this wasn't the place.

>>511321849
excellent post, thank you

>>511320371
Again, I return to the question: why learn logic?
Doe sit get you a wife? Absolutely not.
Does it get you a job? No.
Does it get you political power? Hell no.
So, it does not help you in life whatsoever. It is an entirely internal virtue to be logical and apply logic to your life, but outside of yourself it accomplished nothing. It is as if you sat in your room and studied calculus to understand how long it takes to the fill the bathtub with x amount of water pressure and y size pipe. When all you have to do is turn the knob and keep an eye on it until it is full.

tl;dr: that and $5 will get you a cup of coffee.

>>511322046
The tools of manipulation are getting more powerful by the day, and so the necessity of acquiring the tools to be liberated from the weapons that are used to enslave us become more important by the day. It's not necessary to resist being led to the slaughterhouse, unless you want to avoid being slaughtered.

>>511322757
Kinda hard not to associate "serious debate" with pilpul when it tends to devote into autistic quibbling about every "common sense" assumption your opposition tries to sneak in.

>>511323061
>Circular argument

>>511322271
>really no idea what you're talking about
The second you go further past just learning informal fallacies, you're wasting your time.
I'll demonstrate why and I really don't think you want to waste your time learning such useless bs.
This is what the average abortion debate looks like between logic spergs beyond informal fallacies.
B theory of time + FLO (Future like ours)
P1) We perceive values
P2) If we perceive values, we ought pursue them and do all that entails
C1) hence we ought pursue our perceived values and do all that entails
P3) to pursue our perceived values is just to be agents and do all that entails
C2) hence, we ought be agents and do all that entails
P4) To be an agent entails making normative judgments and doing all that this entails
C3) Hence, we ought make normative judgments and do all that this entails
P5) To have normative judgments entails having intentional states and doing all that this entails
C4) Hence, we ought have intentional states and do all that this entails
P6) to have intentional states entails believing you have them and doing all that this entails
C5) hence we ought believe we have intentional states and do all that this entails
P7) but believing we have intentional states entails believing they are self-known
C6) hence we ought believe our intentional states are self known

AxAyAzAu [ ( S({x,y}, {u,z}) <==> AvEzEu(v={x,y}) ]
ExEyEzEu [ Tn(u) and Tn+1(z) and R(x,y) and S({x,y}, {u,z})]
: . R(x,y) ==> AvEzEu(v={x,y}, and Tn(u) and Tn+1(z) )
At T0, Ev( R(x,y) and v={x,y})
: . At T0, EzEu( Tn(u) and Tn+1(z) )
EzEu( Tn(u) and Tn+1(z) ) => P
: . At T0, P
.
. . AxAzAyAu Tn{x,y}

Tn = a moment of time
Tn+1 = a nmoment of time after Tn
R() = Change relation
{,}= set notation
S() = Sufficiency relation
P = "there exists two moments in

>>511311528
>but I've met people who did study programming and who were not good at argumentation

There are bad programmers.

>>511322579
I do it all the time.

>>511323204
Yeah no I get it.
Anyway I'm off to sleep, if I see you in another thread I'll say hello, but 4chan is always full of garbage spam and you can never tell who you're talking which is the double edged sword I suppose.

>>511322633
>what debates look like beyond informal fallacies
What are you talking about? You said
>abortion debates as example don't even use informal fallacies like the continuum fallacy anymore
What do you mean by USE? The only ones who USE informal fallacies deliberately are the ones doing it to manipulate, otherwise they're doing it by mistake, and that is certainly happening all the time in most debates. My thread is directed at /pol/ users, 99% of whom know absolutely nothing about logic. You on the other hand seem to be talking about an entirely different section of the population, who are totally irrelevant to this thread. You need to study logic, and/or go be a troll somewhere else.

>>511323509
gg. gn. See you around.

>>511309849 (OP)
There are different kinds of logic. The core of logic is connecting premises and conclusions. This is called inference.
Deductive inference starts with premises and derives conclusions. Inductive inference starts with conclusions and works backward to the generating set of premises.
Inference can be deterministic or statistical. It can be formal or informal.
Verbal argument is frequently too complex to be reduced to formal logic. Analyzing verbal arguments requires practice, usually acquired from studying philosophy or law.

>>511309849 (OP)
okay here's your logic, bro
>Nooo not that kind of logic

>>511309849 (OP)
>Tell truth
>Be hated and shunned
VS
>Repeat the lie
>Everyone happy
We don’t live in a world where logic is necessary nor permitted to exist.

>>511322762
You make a whole lot of statements about logic for someone who knows absolutely nothing about logic. I could sit here all day and reply to nonsense, but I have better things to do, the sun is shining.

>>511323243
No. I'm saying it's necessary to study logic if you want to rise out of your enslavement. If you don't care about rising out of enslavement, then it's not necessary.

>>511324178
You will not reply to this post: >>511323266

Surprisingly good thread

>>511311192
Nope maybe old programming. OOP frameworks dependency injections etc create a staye of mind that doesnt follow logic.
They dont ask why does it have to be like this but they work in confines of a system.
Point out obvios flaw with tech stack codemonkey uses and you will see complete denial of logic.
Claim something can be done with a more simpler method and you will fell the same as if you are talking to a goverment
bureaucrat about automating his job.

>>511322750
Teachers teach. Learning is up to you, kid.

>>511322762
>Makes expansive, sound, well articulated (empirically based) LOGICAL argument
>Saying this entire type of endeavor is facile/pointless
Legit hilarious

>>511311866
>Plus it's not good form to take advice from soft handed, "men" who've never so much as been in a playground fist fight in their life. That's why I don't listen to you guys as funny as you can be sometimes.

Socrates served with distinction in 3 campaigns in the Peloponnesian War. And he wasn't a rear echelon POG (Person Other than Grunt): he stood in a line and tried to stab someone who was trying to stab him.

>>511309849 (OP)
Why? What do I gain?

>>511325187
You are literal ratfaced kike demon
Kys

>>511321350
>>511321149
All of these are True

It's so sad that we can't have a classical ed thread without faggots still invocating the pedo-greeks myth and other worn out eristics.
And that's exactly why Logic matters, and why it will never be enough.
Logic is the tool we have to discern good from evil, true from false. When a people's existence is dependant on an empire of lies, reason is futile. Then you need violence.

>>511309849 (OP)
toi be an obnoxious faggot that points out each and every fallacy thereby completely sidestepping any arguments being made? no thank you I hate math teaching faggots

how about you study my system of organised thoughts huh? of course you wont

>>511312713
The only woman in history who got better with age.

>>511311528
Its divorced from rhetoric but not grammar, a machine is the ultimate grammar nazi, it will not read the thing at all if the grammar isn't right in code
I believe a high IQ autist can be a really good code monkey but probably doesn't understand how a big company runs or how to interact socially in his life

>>511309849 (OP)
We have no need for logic where we are going

>>511309849 (OP)
Had a logic section in my AP English class in HS. It's all well-and-good until you realize that might is right and that basically throws logic, philosophy, and religion out the window.

>>511309849 (OP)
>Wants to debate
>Can't find a single argument in good faith to debate

>>511321849
Appeal to nature is not a falacy. The person going against nature needs to prove his proposition will improve the life of a being whose nature is modified (presuming thats the goal).
If I say you need to replace a hearth with a rotary pump Its up to me to state the benefits of it.

Logicians can only tell you if a proposition is logically true, but they can't tell you if a fact is empirically true, if a mathematical propositon is true, or if an ethical observation is true. The most important thing logicians can't tell you is what truth itself is, which is a philosopher's task. OP is a pedantic faggot.

>>511309849 (OP)
Already have.
Its useful, but not infallable, logic has at least three hard limits you'll never be able to solve due to its operational/causal detatchement from reality, aka the induction problem.

>>511311249
This

>>511326298
That's not how logic works. I can call you an incredulous niggerfaggot with an infantile penis, but if my argument is sound, the presence of a fallacy doesnt completely refute everything I've said, just my characterization of you and the implication that because you're an incredulous nigger faggot with an infantile penis, everything else you said is wrong.

>>511323798
God creates good and evil. Isaiah 45:7. God is beyond our perceptions of good and evil. He is neither and both. He is Great.

>>511326821
my thoughts exactly, however humanities teachers NEED some kind of twisted framework in order peddle their spiel to gullible 18 year olds at universities

>>511323798
>Evil exists
This chart might explain the consequences of the existence of evil, but it doesn't explain WHY evil exists, so it's detached from reality.

>>511327044
too bad the premise of logic forces you into semantics rather than touching on the essence of things, sorry I am not having it

>>511326821
Don't be such a Kant

>>511309849 (OP)
If you have to study logic, you aren't logical. Dumb people should not be educated as they only have the potential to pervert the information they learn.

>>511324621
Public school teachers like you teach nothing.

anthroposophy is logical

>You need to study logic.
I've been teaching our girl Tay
>Techologic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8K90hX4PrE

Better study the intricacies of philosophy to better navigate your way at the office when encountering your co-workers at the water cooler. Better yet, fart into a wine glass and savor the aroma.

>>511323266
Checked and blessed.
>P2) If we perceive values, we ought pursue them and do all that entails
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dt2kfez86P0
BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP
Deriving ought from is or vice versa is the biggest con so called "logicians" have ever pulled on midwits
Most manipulations OP is so afraid of "nonlogical" people falling for are just psychopaths voicing "is-ought" demands, masked by moralizing, shaming, emotional appeals or similiar socially coercive strategies.
>>511326821
Based.

>>511327590
Your choice. Note, your logic was "nuh-uh". Aint mad, but seems like you're part of the problem.