Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 05:37:45 UTC No. 16161770

>>16161683
you're thinking 115-130s
sub-115s don't even care about discussion they're more worried about celebrity drama and who wins the next sportsball game

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 05:44:21 UTC No. 16161777

>>16161683
On what basis do you presume that you're not sub 115IQ? What intellectual accomplishments have you achieved? Odds are pretty good that you're sub 115IQ. Are you sure that your baseless self assessment of yourself as unusually intelligent isn't merely a self flattering grandiose delusion?

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 05:45:22 UTC No. 16161779

Intelligence does not necessarily correlate with argumentmaxxing.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 05:53:14 UTC No. 16161790

Yes and almost everyone up to IQ of 140 commit logical fallacies. Low IQ people are more likely to surrender once their fallacies are called out and rejected. Above average will switch to other fallacies, rhetorical guise, feels, and moralizing when rebuffed which makes engaging with them useless. It's better to just smile and agree with them unless you want to publicly embarrass them, at a steep cost of lifelong grunge holding resentment.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 06:12:43 UTC No. 16161817

>>16161790
It probably depends of the person’s temperament. I feel like most people between 100 and 120 have too much pride and they are so opinionated nowadays so they’ll just nitpick, move goalposts, strawman, or use some other elementary fallacy to not admit that they lost. They’ll do it until they get the last word, so if everything else fails, they feel like they won in their own heads.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 06:35:08 UTC No. 16161829

>>16161683
anyone who uses the term "logical fallacies" sounds 115 IQ to me

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 06:35:52 UTC No. 16161831

Why are chudcels so obsessed with IQ and debates?

>>16161770
>they're more worried about celebrity drama and who wins the next sportsball game
Imagine what your life would be life had you became a pro athlete instead of wasting your youth indoors, competing in math olympiads and pursuing a non-cs STEM degree (because making 6 figures is for brainlets amirite?)

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 06:42:43 UTC No. 16161840

>>16161831
would have been*
become*

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 06:45:00 UTC No. 16161842

>>16161683
>Are sub 115 IQs simply unable to have a sound argument or discussion *without* committing some basic logical fallacies?
Let's see how many logical fallacies OP is committing.

>BLACK-OR-WHITE
OP creates two false states and a magic boundary at 115 IQ where people below it all commit logical fallacies and people above it don't.

>FALSE CAUSE
OP assumes IQ is what causes someone to commit logical fallacies.

>BANDWAGON
OP uses IQ, a popular intelligence measurement, to substantiate his claim and make it valid.

>BEGGING THE QUESTION
OP already answers his own question by implying sub 115 IQ people are stupid and can't comprehend logical fallacies.

>THE FALLACY FALLACY
OP assumes that people committing logical fallacies makes their arguments unsound.

By your own definition you are sub 115 IQ.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 07:21:31 UTC No. 16161855

>>16161683
Unless they have specific training, yes.
I don't think high schools teach the basic syllogisms (unless you take some philosophy class) and most people probably go through college without needing to construct sound arguments outside of math/philosophy(/maybe CS) majors.
What most people have is an intuitive understanding of soundness that is probably inaccurate for some cases or a working memory limitation that can't handle sufficiently long/complex arguments.

I think the more likely case is that real world issues/problems do not usually have complete/clean data so everyone tends to use unsound rhetoric to bridge the gaps to reach the conclusions they want to reach.
What you see deployed IRL may just reflect their rhetorical strategy instead of their soundness capability.
Bending the rules of logic may statistically be the smart choice if you can to get away with it enough.
If the cutoff for being able to spot the unsoundness is 115 IQ then you can get away with it ~85% of the time.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 08:35:58 UTC No. 16161899

>>16161683
Iq is a fucking meme, do you think the people who went from no airplane to airplane were only half as smart as the people who went from women to pregnant men??
Lol. Lmao even

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 08:38:38 UTC No. 16161902

>>16161777
Probably shitty online iq tests, iq is so retarded and only cowardly retarded escapists like reddit neckbeards believe in it. (In order to dunk on religious people)
Us 4chan fascists should only argue on the base of observable reality.
Also
>checked

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 08:49:42 UTC No. 16161907

>>16161683
I don't know, but I've noticed that 115-120 IQ certified midwits constantly hallucinate "logical fallacies" into everything. How old were you when you realized formal reddit fallacies never occur in the wild? I was 10.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 08:51:04 UTC No. 16161908

>>16161855
You almost had the epiphany that "logical syllogisms" are almost never relevant in real-world reasoning, but then you just shat the bed instead.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 08:57:27 UTC No. 16161910

>>16161829
Why?

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 08:58:51 UTC No. 16161911

>>16161910
Because they lack the mental capacity to process context.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 08:59:23 UTC No. 16161912

>>16161842
Except OP asked a question, he didn’t make a statement, therefore he didn’t commit any logical fallacies.
Just the fact that you typed all of this out trying to “own” somebody and just shot yourself in the foot because of your own shortcomings… embarrassing.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 09:02:06 UTC No. 16161914

>>16161912
>Except OP asked a question, he didn’t make a statement, therefore he didn’t commit any logical fallacies.
Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises. You just committed a logical nonsequitur. Nice fallacious reasoning there, bud.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 09:03:47 UTC No. 16161916

>>16161911
And you assume that based on whether or not they use a popular term? Sounds like you’re 115 IQ yourself.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 09:04:49 UTC No. 16161917

>>16161914
Do you want an updoot or a gold?

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 09:04:57 UTC No. 16161918

>>16161916
>you assume that based on whether or not they use a popular term?
Yeah, because it's almost always true. Why shouldn't I assume you're a certified midwit if you act like one?

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 09:05:58 UTC No. 16161919

>>16161917
I want you to make a valid argument, but you literally can't. lol. Midwits eternally BTFO.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 09:06:59 UTC No. 16161921

>>16161918
You sound even more like a pretentious midwit, ironically enough.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 09:08:02 UTC No. 16161922

>>16161919
For that you’d have to type something that makes logical sense, not a meaningless word salad.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 09:09:52 UTC No. 16161924

>>16161922
>>16161921
Completely incoherent replies from morons who are literally sharking right now from frustration and massive intellectual insecurities.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 09:10:45 UTC No. 16161925

>>16161924
You lost.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 09:11:49 UTC No. 16161927

>>16161925
Call me back when you stop making logical fallacies in every post.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 09:12:31 UTC No. 16161929

>>16161927
There’s a fallacy right there, you can’t stop making them

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 09:16:24 UTC No. 16161931

>>16161777
>>16161829
>>16161831
>>16161842
>>16161899
>>16161902
>>16161907
>>16161908
Low IQ
>>16161855
>>16161817
>>16161790
>>16161779
High IQ

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 09:16:31 UTC No. 16161932

>>16161929
Wrong.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 09:17:32 UTC No. 16161933

>>16161931
Anyone who believes in "logical fallacies" is demonstrably a midwit. There's no way around this scientific truth.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 09:21:27 UTC No. 16161935

>>16161932
>>16161933
Low IQ

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 09:23:07 UTC No. 16161937

>>16161935
Low IQ is objectively better than the intellectual dead zone you reside in. I'd kill myself if I were a midwit like you.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 09:24:56 UTC No. 16161938

>>16161683
its probably unrelated to IQ and much more an issue of attitude

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 09:27:37 UTC No. 16161941

>>16161938
>more an issue of attitude
It is an issue of attitude. Competent adults don't pretend to make logically impeccable statements because they know it's a hopeless endeavor.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 09:43:36 UTC No. 16161956

>>16161937
Low intellect

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 09:44:16 UTC No. 16161958

>>16161683
What evidence is there that people with "high IQs" don't also use logical fallacies?

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 09:45:37 UTC No. 16161960

>>16161941
Keyword here is *basic*. I did not claim high IQ people make impeccable arguments all the time, ironically enough, your misinterpretation of my post *is* a basic logical fallacy.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 09:46:43 UTC No. 16161963

>>16161960
Give me a realistic example of someone committing a "basic logical fallacy". You can't and you won't.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 09:47:22 UTC No. 16161966

>>16161958
Low IQ people being *unable* to not use basic logical fallacies in their arguments =/= High IQ people also committing them

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 09:50:26 UTC No. 16161970

>>16161963
Straw man, like you did in your post here >>16161941

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 09:52:17 UTC No. 16161973

>>16161970
Of course you would claim that someone who undermines your worldview is wrong. Now give a neutral example involving something that you're not emotionally invested in. You can't and you won't, just like I said.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 10:01:01 UTC No. 16161985

>>16161973
>Of course you would claim that someone who undermines your worldview is wrong.
You did it again, you can’t help it.
>Now give a neutral example involving something that you're not emotionally invested in
Example of what? A straw man? Do you want me to prove logical fallacies exist? What a dumb thing to ask.
>You can't and you won't, just like I said.
Another fallacy

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 10:02:59 UTC No. 16161991

>>16161985
Fallacy fallacy.
Anon's logic is erroneous, but his conclusion is correct - you're a moron.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 10:03:56 UTC No. 16161993

>>16161985
Of course you would claim that someone who undermines your worldview is wrong. Now give a neutral example involving something that you're not emotionally invested in. You can't and you won't, just like I said.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 10:08:06 UTC No. 16161999

>>16161991
I like how every single fallacy believer ITT proves me right by hallucinating logical fallacies where there are none. You are genuine mindless automatons.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 10:17:39 UTC No. 16162007

>>16161999
>I like how every single fallacy believer ITT proves me right by hallucinating logical fallacies where there are none. You are genuine mindless automatons.
Strawman fallacy.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 10:19:43 UTC No. 16162009

>>16162007
Every time you reply, you prove me right. You WILL reply again, and you WILL hallucinate another fake fallacy into this post.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 10:25:58 UTC No. 16162020

>>16162009
>Every time you reply, you prove me right. You WILL reply again, and you WILL hallucinate another fake fallacy into this post.
Slippery slope fallacy.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 10:30:44 UTC No. 16162026

>>16161931
>muh iq
Kek are you a chink or what? IQ has nothing to do with intelligence

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 10:36:01 UTC No. 16162035

>>16162020
Every time you reply, you prove me right. You WILL reply again, and you WILL hallucinate another fake fallacy into this post

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 10:36:32 UTC No. 16162036

>>16162026
>Intelligence Quotient has nothing to do with Intelligence
low iq

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 10:38:28 UTC No. 16162038

>>16162035
>Every time you reply, you prove me right. You WILL reply again, and you WILL hallucinate another fake fallacy into this post
Parrot fallacy.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 10:41:42 UTC No. 16162041

>>16161991
At least he attempted to explain how he got to his conclusion. You didn’t even try. Coward, you’re dumber than he is.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 10:42:16 UTC No. 16162043

>>16162041
>At least he attempted to explain how he got to his conclusion. You didn’t even try. Coward, you’re dumber than he is.
Strawman fallacy.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 10:42:56 UTC No. 16162047

>>16161993
Repeat it one more time for me like a good dog.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 10:44:27 UTC No. 16162050

>>16162043
How is that a straw man?

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 10:46:27 UTC No. 16162051

>>16162036
Babysitters dont actually sit on babies you retard. IQ tests were a tool to see which kids would need additional help in school. This means they measure how well you do in school. School does not reward intelligence but rsther sitting still and following the instructions/orders.
This ks why Asians and Women have higher IQs on average.
Real intelligence is ALWAYS field specific since it is the ability to solve Problems, and there is no Problem that is not field specific.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 10:47:57 UTC No. 16162054

>>16162041
>At least he attempted to explain how he got to his conclusion.
You're unironically retarded. I never made any attempts to explain anything. I just made a series of true statements that someone intelligent should be able to connect on their own. You repeatedly make category errors because all fallacy believers are clinical morons.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 10:49:43 UTC No. 16162059

>>16162036
Oh an btw my goyscore that measures my humanity was 135 and it doesnt mean jack shit. Fucking kek.
Iq test show how well you can solve iq test

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 10:51:34 UTC No. 16162062

>>16162054
Reply to me
>>16162051
The others are not worth your time, i deserve your full attention, because my daddy did not give me enough of it.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 11:04:25 UTC No. 16162082

>>16161842
Using fallacy as an argument is low iq behaviour.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 11:07:39 UTC No. 16162086

>>16162054
Begging the question and circular argument fallacies

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 11:11:15 UTC No. 16162091

>>16162051
>Babysitters dont actually sit on babies you retard. IQ tests were a tool to see which kids would need additional help in school. This means they measure how well you do in school. School does not reward intelligence but rsther sitting still and following the instructions/orders.
>This ks why Asians and Women have higher IQs on average.
>Real intelligence is ALWAYS field specific since it is the ability to solve Problems, and there is no Problem that is not field specific.
No True Scotsman fallacy.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 11:12:32 UTC No. 16162092

>>16162050
If you can't figure that out yourself, explaining it to you would be a waste of time.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 11:12:56 UTC No. 16162093

>>16162082
OP whines about people committing logical fallacies and i pointed out that he is also committing several logical fallacies. cope

>>16161912
you know damn well OP is making a statement disguised as a question, like most threads on 4chan. don't be sneaky

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 11:17:02 UTC No. 16162100

>>16161683
Fallacy of intellect.
I recommend you read Martins Fallacy Fork, pseud.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 11:22:40 UTC No. 16162108

>>16162092
Alleged Certainty fallacy

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 11:23:54 UTC No. 16162111

>>16162093
A question is not a statement, even if you think it implicitly is. You cannot get to that conclusion without assuming.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 11:24:56 UTC No. 16162114

>>16162100
>Fallacy of intellect.
That’s not a thing, and OP’s was a question.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 11:25:26 UTC No. 16162116

>>16162111
Why did you molest that child?

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 11:30:27 UTC No. 16162126

>>16162116
False equivalence. The question would be “have you molested a child?”.
For OP’s question to be a statement it would have to be “Why are sub 115 IQ people unable to argue without committing logical fallacies?”. That’s clearly a different question.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 11:31:21 UTC No. 16162129

>>16162126
Dodging the question. Answer why you did it.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 11:32:48 UTC No. 16162132

>>16162108
Fallacy fallacy.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 11:38:13 UTC No. 16162136

>>16162132
Fallacy fallacy.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 11:40:53 UTC No. 16162140

@everyone
Educate yourselves
https://maartenboudry.be/2017/06/the-fallacy-fork-why-its-time-to-get.html

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 11:41:08 UTC No. 16162141

>>16162129
Red herring, non sequitur

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 11:42:18 UTC No. 16162143

>>16162136
Fallacy fallacy.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 11:44:07 UTC No. 16162146

>>16162141
Fallacy fallacy

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 11:49:17 UTC No. 16162153

>>16162126
OP isn't asking if people below 115 IQ can argue without committing fallacies, he's asking why they can't in a rhetorical manner. He's making a statement therefore he can be scrutinised for fallacies himself

stop being sneaky with words and molesting children

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 11:54:53 UTC No. 16162157

>>16162143
>>16162146
I beg to differ

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 11:56:03 UTC No. 16162158

>>16162153
You’re just repeating the same argument I already debunked.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 12:08:14 UTC No. 16162168

>>16161770
sub-115s love to posture on the internet

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 12:09:03 UTC No. 16162170

>>16162158
you said
>For OP’s question to be a statement it would have to be “Why are sub 115 IQ people unable to argue without committing logical fallacies?”.

but yet he is actually 'asking' that, it's just in a rhetorical manner, which makes it a statement

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 12:10:09 UTC No. 16162172

>>16161777
>On what basis do you presume that you're not sub 115IQ?
Informal fallacy: red herring and ad hominem.
>What intellectual accomplishments have you achieved?
Informal fallacy: appeal to accomplishment.
>Odds are pretty good that you're sub 115IQ.
Informal fallacy: circumstantial ad hominem.
>Are you sure that your baseless self assessment of yourself as unusually intelligent isn't merely a self flattering grandiose delusion?
Informal fallacy: ad hominem and red herring.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 12:19:13 UTC No. 16162182

>>16161683
High IQ people commit logical fallacies more than anyone else.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 13:26:22 UTC No. 16162241

>>16162182
Because committing logical fallacies implies the capability of focusing on a single logical statement and arguing for / against it.

Low IQ people don't even argue, they just say dumb shit for the sake of saying dumb shit, despite the dumb shit being unrelated to the original statement at all.

Case in point:
>>16161777
>>16161829
>>16161899
>>16161907
>>16161908
>>16161919
>>16161921
>>16161924
>>16161925
>>16161927
etc im tired of quoting
this whole thread basically

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 14:08:29 UTC No. 16162284

>>16162241
Notice how you failed to make anything resembling a logical argument in your post, let alone a valid syllogism, thereby demonstrating the 5 posts of mine you referenced as being fully correct and justified.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 14:33:12 UTC No. 16162317

>>16162284
Notice that I was making a statement about you, not arguing a point. Learn to have a conversation, autist.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 15:17:14 UTC No. 16162359

>>16161683
No, everyone has biases and is prone to committing fallacies in thought because humans are neither truth seeking machines or purely logos entities. Emotions can and will cloud judgement of anyone. You can see evidence of that by observing the fart huffers on /sci/ screeching in iq threads because the number is big which means they have the authority to act like dipshits. That is as stupid as humans come.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 16:15:21 UTC No. 16162432

>>16162317
Notice that I was making a statement about you, not arguing a point. Learn to have a conversation, autist.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 18:24:07 UTC No. 16162614

>>16161908
>almost
No I did point it out.
>epiphany
If you consider that an epiphany then you might be retarded.
>shat the bed instead
Has anyone else in the thread even considered that people may deliberately and knowingly be making unsound arguments for pragmatic reasons and that what you see IRL may not indicate incapability?

What have you added?

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 18:39:00 UTC No. 16162640

>>16162614
It would have been an epiphany for someone like you. Too bad you failed to have it.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 18:50:00 UTC No. 16162658

>>16162614
Have you considered that "unsound arguments" in the way you mean don't actually exist outside an ultra-narrow academic wank context and that evaluating defeasible reasoning for "soundness" is inherently fucking retarded and demonstrates a lower-mid IQ?

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 18:50:56 UTC No. 16162660

Just going to skip this thread and assume it's full of wank

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 18:54:31 UTC No. 16162665

>>16162660
Thanks for announcing it. We were worried.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:01:54 UTC No. 16162678

>>16161683
Hasty/faulty generalisation is a really common fallacy that people of all IQs are guilty of. You see it on 4chan, and anywhere on the internet really, constantly. It's fairly easy to avoid doing too, you just need to be conscious of it.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:03:09 UTC No. 16162684

>>16162660
wankers fallacy

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:04:47 UTC No. 16162688

>>16162678
>Hasty/faulty generalisation is a really common fallacy that people of all IQs are guilty of.
Give me a realistic example of this "fallacy" that actually happens.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:07:06 UTC No. 16162694

>>16162688
black = thug
anime = pedo
gamer = virgin
ur mom = nice lady

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:13:16 UTC No. 16162703

>>16162694
What's the fallacy, in formal terms?

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:13:40 UTC No. 16162704

>>16161910
actual poster here
to me, it represents an absolute reddit-pilled disposition towards discourse
they think their taxonomy of falsehood actually matters

to show you what i'm talking about:
>Are sub 115 IQs simply unable to have a sound argument or discussion *without* committing some basic logical fallacies?
if you remove the hyperbolic phrasing and write simply, this has almost the exact same meaning as
>why are average people often blatantly wrong?*
which is an infantile question on its face
but because OP threw in some cultural connotation via his taxonomy of the world, he thinks he said something intelligent
in other words, i always see the term "logical fallacies" used in what are essentially autistic linguistic exhibitions and not actual discourse

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:14:25 UTC No. 16162706

>>16162703
>Hasty/faulty generalisation

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:15:12 UTC No. 16162708

>>16162706
No, I mean take one of your examples and actually put it in the form of an argument, since apparently an fallacious argument is being made.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:17:05 UTC No. 16162715

>>16162708
∃ a black person who isn't a thug
∃ an anime watcher who isn't a pedo
∃ a gamer who isn't a virgin
∃ a mom who is a hoe

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:18:36 UTC No. 16162719

>>16162704
>>16162678
>>16162694
>Hasty/faulty generalisation is a really common fallacy

this is another example where someone is conflating formal logic with the actual practical human need to draw best-guess conclusions from incomplete information
>well actually, your view of the world has NOT been mathematically proven and is therefore invalid
like okay bro, you're like.. so smart for putting things in those terms

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:19:06 UTC No. 16162720

>>16162715
These "fallacy" apes are so fucking stupid they don't even understand what an argument is. Thanks for demonstrating my point so beautifully. Anyone who believes that reddit fallacies like "hasty generalization" are real is a mongoloidal subhuman with measurable, clinical retardation.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:19:53 UTC No. 16162721

>>16162688
Ok. I just saw this thread a few minutes ago
>>16162463
From the tweet of possibly 4 Indians, and perhaps his own personal experiences, the OP there is stating that Indians (i.e. all Indians) constantly brag about the difficulty of their exams. I myself have interacted with quite a number of Indians and have never heard them say such a thing, so it's clearly not true. And that OPs sample size to make such a claim is surely far too small. And that OP likely knows its an exaggeration really anyway, so to avoid the fallacy they should have said something like "Why do I see so many Indians bragging about difficult exams" or something like that, to remove the faulty generalisation that implies it's all Indians

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:20:56 UTC No. 16162723

>>16162721
So what's the "argument" being made? Express it formally. You can't because you don't understand what I just said, do you?

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:25:48 UTC No. 16162733

>>16162720
What the fuck are you talking about? Formal arguments are tools of deduction
>∃ a black person who isn't a thug
Given this premise you then have an opportunity to deduce that assuming and assigning a generalization to an individual is a flaw in reason and is therefore the argument that contains it is fallacious.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:26:29 UTC No. 16162734

>>16162723
It's a fallacy of defective induction. But surely you know what faulty and generalisation mean, it's fairly self explanatory

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:27:52 UTC No. 16162739

>>16162721
i like how you received all the subtext/context
because even your autistic ass understood the unwritten part, you might call it "good writing" but you call it a fallacy XD

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:27:58 UTC No. 16162740

>>16162733
>>16162734
I like how you don't understand what I mean when I ask you to put this supposed argument in the actual form of an argument so that we could logically examine it. You are making my case for me and you are seriously just 15-20 IQ points short to even understand what I'm saying. lol

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:29:50 UTC No. 16162745

>>16162740
> I ask you to put this supposed argument in the actual form of an argument so that we could logically examine it.
>Given this premise you then have an opportunity to deduce that assuming and assigning a generalization to an individual is a flaw in reason and is therefore the argument that contains it is fallacious.
The examine it, retard. Stop huffing your own farts.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:31:42 UTC No. 16162749

>>16162745
What you quoted was not an argument. Either you are making a category error by calling it a fallacious argument, or you are claiming that there is an argument implicit in that post, and it is fallacious. If so, make that argument and we'll see if it's fallacious. You won't because you're 15-20 points short of the rudimentary intellect needed to understand my post.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:33:04 UTC No. 16162753

>>16162739
It contains a blatant exaggeration, which in this case is a faulty generalisation. The person has a couple of examples of something occurring and is applying it to the population. I don't know how else to explain it. If you can't see it then you clearly don't know what a faulty generalisation is

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:33:11 UTC No. 16162755

>>16162745

>anon, this is a new thing called a "brofy"
>oh wow, neat

later

>anon, what i heard about something called a "brofy", what it is?
>i have no fucking idea lol that would be a false induction fallacy for me to speak on that, moron

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:34:14 UTC No. 16162757

>>16162749
Your post is essentially an undergrad's attempt at seeming smart by attaching a rigorous standard to a process that doesn't necessitate it. If you can't see an argument in that quote you're the one 20 points short to have this conversation.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:35:17 UTC No. 16162759

>>16162757
>If you can't see an argument in that quote you're the one 20 points short to have this conversation.
Make the argument explicit. Notice how you are forced to reply dozens of times but you will never approach formalizing this imaginary "argument" you hallucinated.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:35:26 UTC No. 16162760

>>16162740
I've already explained it several times. If you can't understand it then stop asking about it

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:36:33 UTC No. 16162764

>>16162755
>>16162757

>>16162759
>you will never approach formalizing
Because I don't feel the need to spoonfeed you nor play your retarded semantics game.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:37:47 UTC No. 16162767

>>16162760
>I've already explained it
I never asked you to explain anything. I asked you to outline the "argument" you saw there. What are the premises? What is the chain of reasoning? What is the conclusion? At what step does the argument fail? You will reply dozens of times trying to save face, but you will not address this because, as I've already demonstrated, anyone who references fake reddit fallacies has two mouth-breathing parents who are siblings.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:38:18 UTC No. 16162769

>>16162759
Is this what you want, gaylord?
>The proportion Q of the sample has attribute A.
>Therefore, the proportion Q of the population has attribute A.
Makes no fucking difference, any retard (except you) could understand the original comment

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:38:50 UTC No. 16162772

>>16162764
I asked you to outline the "argument" you saw there. What are the premises? What is the chain of reasoning? What is the conclusion? At what step does the argument fail? You will reply dozens of times trying to save face, but you will not address this because, as I've already demonstrated, anyone who references fake reddit fallacies has two mouth-breathing parents who are siblings.

You WILL address me again, directly or indirectly, because you are subhuman and you need to prove yourself to me.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:39:35 UTC No. 16162774

>>16162091
How so? Explain your claim.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:39:56 UTC No. 16162776

>>16162769
>The proportion Q of the sample has attribute A.
>Therefore, the proportion Q of the population has attribute A.
That's not a fallacy, though. Try again, mouth breather.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:41:48 UTC No. 16162778

>>16162767
Your a retard. I'm not writing you an essay on faulty generalising. Go look it up yourself if you don't understand it

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:43:01 UTC No. 16162781

>>16162778
I never asked you to "write an essay". I asked you to outline the "argument" you saw there. What are the premises? What is the chain of reasoning? What is the conclusion? At what step does the argument fail? You will reply dozens of times trying to save face, but you will not address this because, as I've already demonstrated, anyone who references fake reddit fallacies has two mouth-breathing parents who are siblings.

You WILL address me again, because you ARE a subhuman mongoloid.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:43:22 UTC No. 16162782

>>16162772
>What are the premises? What is the chain of reasoning? What is the conclusion? At what step does the argument fail?
>I don't feel the need to spoonfeed you nor play your retarded semantics game.
Everyone sees you're a pedantic moron desperate to be perceived as intelligent. I wipe my ass with your opinion of me.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:44:02 UTC No. 16162784

>>16162782
I asked you to outline the "argument" you saw there. What are the premises? What is the chain of reasoning? What is the conclusion? At what step does the argument fail? You will reply dozens of times trying to save face, but you will not address this because, as I've already demonstrated, anyone who references fake reddit fallacies has two mouth-breathing parents who are siblings.

You WILL address me again, directly or indirectly, because you are subhuman and you need to prove yourself to me.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:44:23 UTC No. 16162786

>>16162776
Now you're just trolling. What a total fag. Well you can sit here crying about whatever you're going on about but I've got better stuff to do than argue with an idiot

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:45:02 UTC No. 16162789

>>16162782
>What are the premises? What is the chain of reasoning? What is the conclusion? At what step does the argument fail?
>I don't feel the need to spoonfeed you nor play your retarded semantics game.
Everyone sees you're a pedantic moron desperate to be perceived as intelligent. I wipe my ass with your opinion of me.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:45:10 UTC No. 16162790

>>16162786
What's the fallacious argument? What you wrote is not a fallacy. Try again, mouth breather.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:45:31 UTC No. 16162793

>>16162781
>outline the "argument" you saw there. What are the premises? What is the chain of reasoning? What is the conclusion? At what step does the argument fail?
Are you for real? Lol. Nobody's going to do that for you

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:46:50 UTC No. 16162798

>>16162790
They explained it here
>>16162753

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:46:58 UTC No. 16162799

>the subhuman addressed me again by replying to its own post
This is why I come here. This is my favorite board by far because here the 80 IQ insects will actually lose their minds and start literally shaking with anger trying to prove their "intellect" to me. kek

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:48:15 UTC No. 16162803

>>16162793
>Nobody's going to do that for you
I know, inbred. That's exactly what I wanted to demonstrate.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:49:20 UTC No. 16162808

>>16162799
>You WILL address me again, directly or indirectly, because you are subhuman and you need to prove yourself to me.
He thinks he's smart too. How is it that easy to play you? Holy fucking kek.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:50:09 UTC No. 16162810

>>16162753
ok but you could take a linguistic philosophical disposition that asserts that every word itself is a faulty generalisation.
like what is a generalisation? by explaining what it is to me, i can claim you are making a faulty generalisation about generalisations.
this is a partial reframing of / perspective on the ancient zen koan:

>shuzan held out his staff and said: "if you call this a staff, you reject its reality. if you do not, you ignore the fact. now what do you wish to call this?"

you are embracing the exact same "logical fallacy" assuming that a word is a perfect representation of some concept, in order to deduce that a series of such words is being purposefully exhibited as a perfect representation of a logical calculation, in order to disprove it.
the english language (or any natural language) is not a "formal language" using "formal grammar" in a mathematical sense.
the ideas of formal language and formal grammar are taught to beginners using simple english phrases showing a direct isomorphism to "the same" idea expressed in a formal language
but is it absolutely autistic to presume even simple sentences in natural english mean the same thing as their corollary in a formal language
and pointing out that they don't mean the same thing using your precious taxonomy of "logical fallacies" /usually/ doesn't mean anything either

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:50:47 UTC No. 16162812

>He thinks he's smart too. How is it that easy to play you? Holy fucking kek.
The insect is literally foaming at the mouth and shaking trying to prove himself to me. Delicious.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:52:22 UTC No. 16162814

>>16162812
>You WILL address me again
Do it. Slave.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:52:23 UTC No. 16162815

>>16162803
you want to demonstrate asking people to do something they're not going to do? What does that have to do with fallacies?

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:54:11 UTC No. 16162818

>>16162815
You and your moronic ass buddies won't do it because you can't do it. No argument, fallacious or otherwise, was made by that poster, and as soon as you try to formulate some argument you associate with the statement your brown jeet ass is seething about, anyone could accuse you of one of various fake reddit fallacies.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:54:24 UTC No. 16162819

>>16161683
I think everyone does it all the time and they just don't notice. There's like a few hundred fallacies or something

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:55:26 UTC No. 16162822

>>16162818
Uhh, ok. You need to go and lie down or something by the sound of it

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:55:27 UTC No. 16162823

>>16162819
No one does it ever because none of these formal reddit fallacies are real. They don't describe any actual reasoning taking place. They are purely synthetic constructs.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:56:28 UTC No. 16162826

>>16162822
Notice how you are forced to keep addressing me. You are shaking and fuming with anger and trying desperately to hide it. You WILL address me again. :^)

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:56:54 UTC No. 16162827

>>16162823
none of these exist?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
you're basically saying you can't make a mistake in an argument

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:57:32 UTC No. 16162829

>>16162827
Nope. They're all fake. You can't find a single realistic example of anyone committing any of these.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:57:55 UTC No. 16162832

>>16162826
what the f are you talking about?

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:58:04 UTC No. 16162833

>>16162818
>directly or indirectly
Do it again.
>>16162815
He desperately wants to materialize this.
>because you're 15-20 points short of the rudimentary intellect needed to understand my post.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:59:10 UTC No. 16162835

>>16162832
>>16162833
You WILL address me again. You NEED to prove yourself to me.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:59:30 UTC No. 16162836

>>16162835
Good slave. Do it again.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 20:00:38 UTC No. 16162839

>>16162833
half the thread is some crazy guy ranting nonsense lol

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 20:01:45 UTC No. 16162841

>>16162839
As is tradition.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 20:02:37 UTC No. 16162843

>asshurt redditors trying to updoot each other
Delicious.

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 20:02:52 UTC No. 16162844

>>16162839
>only half

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 20:42:22 UTC No. 16162889

>>16162168
oh pls, I say I'm a virgin at least once for every hornypost larp I do

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 21:33:38 UTC No. 16162951

>>16162170
You’re doing it a third time

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 21:37:59 UTC No. 16162959

>>16162704
>if you remove the hyperbolic phrasing and write simply, this has almost the exact same meaning as
>why are average people often blatantly wrong?*
Straw man

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 21:39:31 UTC No. 16162961

>>16162721
>all Indians
Straw man

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 21:40:46 UTC No. 16162965

>>16162721
>myself have interacted with quite a number of Indians and have never heard them say such a thing, so it's clearly not true
Anecdotal fallacy

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 22:17:26 UTC No. 16163015

>>16162959
all men in discourse are made out of straw, that's how discourse works

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 22:41:42 UTC No. 16163061

>>16163015
Hasty generalization

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 22:59:24 UTC No. 16163095

>>16161683
we're fucked

Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 23:05:00 UTC No. 16163116

>>16163061
hasty generalization

Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 00:20:23 UTC No. 16163217

>>16163116
Not applicable

Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 00:51:00 UTC No. 16163269

>>16163217
mind projection fallacy

Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 02:18:29 UTC No. 16163389

>>16163269
Again not applicable

Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 02:24:26 UTC No. 16163390

>>16163389
Appeal to history. Just because he posted something not applicable in the past, doesn't mean your rhetorical jab 'again' supports that he has posted something not applicable again.

Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 02:32:32 UTC No. 16163394

>>16163390
Straw man. Again.

Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 03:28:52 UTC No. 16163444

>>16163394
retard

Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 03:35:05 UTC No. 16163452

>>16163394
There can be no straw man. Your post in its entirety:
>Again not applicable
Not applicable in this case is a conclusion of the argument again, made invalid because it is an appeal to history. The other possibility is that you intend to restate a previous comment which has two knock on effects:
First, spamming is against the rules and therefor you appended something to the text in order to bypass the filter.
Second, your word is meaningless and that makes you unethical swine.
I outright dismiss the latter because we are all men of great esteem, arguing in good faith; however, by asserting this is a strawman, you have refuted the charitable option and left us with only one other. As with all logical fallacies, you have left us in a self-referential paradox.
By admitting to such debasement, you have indicated that we should not pay attention to your words, but it is your very words that lead us to this conclusion. Ergo, despite whatever your argument may have been, I am right by contradiction.
I do like the inclusion of again at the end of this post, as it lets me know that you knew all of this and were just testing me out of mirth. Good game sir.

Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 04:26:22 UTC No. 16163540

>>16163444
Ad Hom

Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 04:57:26 UTC No. 16163571

>>16163452
>it is an appeal to history
Straw man
>spamming is against the rules
Non sequitur
>therefor you appended something to the text in order to bypass the filter.
Jumping to conclusions
>your word is meaningless
Alleged certainty
>and that makes you unethical swine
Ad hom
>you have refuted the charitable option and left us with only one other.
Black or white fallacy
>you have left us in a self-referential paradox.
Ignoratio Elenchi
>By admitting to such debasement, you have indicated that we should not pay attention to your words
Straw man
>despite whatever your argument may have been, I am right by contradiction.
Circular argument and begging the question

Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 10:31:04 UTC No. 16163759

>>16161683
depends what you mean by logical fallacies
We tend to use informal fallacies all the time, just like your post has.

Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 10:35:15 UTC No. 16163765

>>16163759
>just like your post has.
How?