What made you laugh today - Fifth Edition

[Captured Joe]

grr, vegans, grr, look at how reactionary I am!

Looks like I missed the fun!

 

[Do not look here]

It's more of an ancient institution coming to conclusion that their ancient customs may be no longer that great. Though I don't doubt it was also a stunt to earn brownie points with their students, 'hey, look how aware of vegans we are, so please don't be mad when we'll squish more money out of you'.

As I wrote earlier, I understand them completely. Wouldn't feel comfortable eating with that one in a room and it's quite huge for enlightened tactic of 'just don't look at it, moron'. I would know a thing or two about not looking. Guernica is a moving piece, but I wouldn't want that thing on a wall of my dinning room, either.

 

[Flin Flon]

Kurzac, do you think we use logic for logics's sake? Also you're relying on a utilitarian calculus and normative claims yourself, except more flawed.

The danger with a pure feels-based approach is that you can justify anything on the basis of what you feel. A distinction is made between higher and lower pleasures. Where lower ones are impulses and feels (short-term pleasures) and higher ones which are more 'intellectual' (long-term pleasures) and serve to better your life in the long-term. We prioritize higher over lower ones, because we have to forgo short-term impulses (pleasures) to better the quality of our life long-term.

I could punch the annoying guy next (lower pleasure) but that means that I will face the social consequences (higher pleasure). Higher precedes lower.

Short term impulses can be reasoned away. We absolutely can and should appeal to people's reason if the bottom-line here is that you want to better society and therefor by necessity a betterment of your own conditions.

With regard to appeal to sympathy, I agree. Which is why daily mail articles are not conducive to displaying people as regular people, thus muddying any sort of compromise that can be achieved that would increase pleasures both long and short term for both parties.

 

[Bromden]

I'm gonna try to keep this short, so please don't blame the non-verbosity on my inferior intelligence.

So, I'm going to chalk that up as a concession that I was right about the article and by extension your implicit affirmation of the sentiment intended to cultivate by the article.

I  couldn't have affirmed the article, as I never read it. I agreed with the subject mentioned in the post.
I have to acknowledge a mistake here: if I paid enough attention to see that it's a dailyfail thing, I never would have said anything here. What I  said is my personal opinion, but I trust my personal opinion (based on experiences and observations, mind, I try not to have opinions about things I don't know **** about) much more than those empirical scientists you quoted against me.

Besides that, you explicitly asked me to elaborate on that particular point. I hope you understand how frustrating it is that you now hold ''lol idc about the thing i explicitly asked you about''. This is one of the reasons why I struggle to talk to you.

You struggle to talk to me because you think I'm an idiot whithout trying to understand what I actually mean.

Dude, c'mon. I feel like this is the least charitable interpretation of what I said. You're putting me in the uncomfortable position of having to explain that it was a normative claim (how societies should function (but also do function)). This is something you then use to accuse me of arrogance.

Dude, c'mon, you WERE arrogant as ****. Excuse me if I don't do charitable interpretations of the things you said after.

You're missing the point. I'm not making any claims about groups of people. You are. My spiel about reliance on personal experience is a critique of its use when matters are multi-faceted or more complicated then we think they are. In which case the matter is 'vulnerable' or susceptible to unintended conjecture or bias, thus leading to a false conclusion. Besides, I do have studies. Just not for what you think I'm arguing.

You still critique and discard my personal experiences without raising any proper argument against it. You seem to think me an idiot who can't be right by standard because I'm not a scientist.

Cringe. You realize that I used footnote #1 to make that very distinction, right? Empirical evidence is gathered through careful deliberation and interpreted with even more care that is not analogous to you getting agitated with your bro. People study for years to understand how skills like information gathering work. In our arguments alone you've been falling for text-book fallacies so excuse me if I take what you say as less-than-reliable.

See above.

Your initial reaction to the vegans and their ''whiney'' attitude vs what happened in reality should speak volumes of your faulty preconceived notions. I hope this 'personal experience' was a lesson to be learned from.

See above.

Well, first of all. You already conceded the point that the article and your statement about vegans in that particular story were false but ok. Secondly, my argument is part of a broader point about reactionary sentiments, which is a phenomenon studied extensively. Sources will be provided should there be an interest.

What if, say, what if my sentiments are based on some amount of reality and not just born out of reactionary, contrarianist partizan motives?

I didn't specifically call you a dumbass in that post. It was part of a genuine critique with how you regularly raise faulty arguments. It's like I can't say anything. If I take a more passive stance, people start to feel emboldened to say dumber things. If I take an aggressive one, I feel abusive. If it's 'lecturing', I'm arrogant. If I extend the benefit of the doubt, I feel gaslit on things that are demonstrably wrong.

Dude, you practically said that 70% of people are idiots and you consider me one of them.

Yeah because you suddenly pivoted your ****ty rhetoric from whiney vegans to '''''top-tier'''' vegans.

I considered the two as the same group. Like if I called you a **** first and an ******* later, both could be about you just because they are different descriptions. (You see, I did what you did, calling you a **** and an ******* without actually calling you those, so I could easily deny it later.)

I'm not interested in this subject you've carefully injected now. Nor do I care if this was your 'drive' from the beginning. I'm going to put the burden of being understood on you, given the subject and context that started this disagreement.

Yes, you are only interested in showing how smart you are, not in real discussions.

We are talking past each other. I don't care about vegans. I care about ****ty rhetoric.

You can, in good faith make a joke or a statement about whiney vegans. But given the context in which it was evident that the daily mail article purposefully tried to cultivate some sort of resentment, you need to check what your ****ing priorities are. Are you gonna reaffirm the article (and its mischaracterization of people and events) or would you in that instance understand that feelings and sentiments are fickle and absolutely formative of our actual view of the world. Thus, whatever your intention in that particular context is, it does not matter if you explicitly or implicitly reaffirm the sentiment. This is part of the psychological concept of operant conditioning, which is something we all are susceptible to. Me no less than you. This is why I try to recognize fallacious arguments and false narratives. Fallacies lead to faulty conclusions, which leads to measurable harm. In the instance of a false narrative, what I try to prioritize is calling out the bull**** and I would hold other people to the same standard.

Yeah, I can see when others are bull****ting, too. That's what I'm seeing now.

 

[Flin Flon]

I couldn't have affirmed the article, as I never read it.

Words have meaning and effect. Welcome to metaphysics.

I agreed with the subject mentioned in the post.
I have to acknowledge a mistake here: if I paid enough attention to see that it's a dailyfail thing, I never would have said anything here.

All I needed to hear, baby.

Dude, c'mon, you WERE arrogant as ****. Excuse me if I don't do charitable interpretations of the things you said after.

Sure, but you just end up making yourself look bad.

You still critique and discard my personal experiences without raising any proper argument against it.

I did in the quote you're replying.

What if, say, what if my sentiments are based on some amount of reality and not just born out of reactionary, contrarianist partizan motives?

I'd say express them in an appropriate manner, time and place.

Dude, you practically said that 70% of people are idiots and you consider me one of them.

Dude. Is that what you think I said? First of all, the numerations were footnotes, not arguments in and of themselves, but statements supporting or contextualizing the matter indicated by the number assigned to it in the text (1) above it.

I said 70% of our (that is, humans, both me and you) opinions are based on the basis of biases. Meaning it applies to everyone. So you don't really read what I tell you and I'm gonna chalk this up as a lie when you said you tried to read my **** in good faith despite my ''arrogance''. You're not stupid, just lazy.

I considered the two as the same group. Like if I called you a **** first and an ******* later, both could be about you just because they are different descriptions. (You see, I did what you did, calling you a **** and an ******* without actually calling you those, so I could easily deny it later.)

Boring.

Yes, you are only interested in showing how smart you are, not in real discussions.

I'm interested in attaining a more correct position and I will concede **** without a second thought if it means I can refine my positions.

Yeah, I can see when others are bull****ting, too. That's what I'm seeing now.

It's super well-thought-out, carefully constructed argument. It's possible I haven't explained it as well as I could have. If there's something you don't understand about it, let me know. If you mean you don't believe that I have at least some sort of virtue-istic intentions, then that's fine. It's also true that I'm ego-drives, but who isn't.

 

[Bromden]

No, a lot of fancy words won't magically turn bull****ting into a real argument. Don't worry, I understand your fancy words well enough, I just prefer to express myself in a more simplistic way. But if you don't understand something about it,  just ask and I'll elaborate.

Edit: and if you don't consider me one of the 70%-er retards, why post that part in the first place?

 

[Flin Flon]

No, a lot of fancy words won't magically turn bull****ting into a real argument. Don't worry, I understand your fancy words well enough, I just prefer to express myself in a more simplistic way. But if you don't understand something about it,  just ask and I'll elaborate.

Ok, I will. Please, a plea, a request, please Bromden, please, I beg you can you point out where I was bull****ting there?

and if you don't consider me one of the 70%-er retards, why post that part in the first place?

70% OF OUR OPINIONS (NOT PEOPLE). IT APPLIES TO EVERYONE (ALL PEOPLE).

70% OF MY OPINIONS ARE FAULTY
70% OF YOUR OPINIONS ARE FAULTY
70% OF YOUR NEIGHBOURS OPINIONS ARE FAULTY

 

[Bromden]

Is that your opinion, or did you base it on empirical evidence, supported by peer review? Because if not the latter, then by your rules I have to point it out as bull****ting.

 

[Flin Flon]

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/risa.12360

Ok, I will. Please, a plea, a request, please Bromden, please, I beg you can you point out where I was bull****ting there?

Look how I have to beg.

 

[Bromden]

The bull****ting part is where you say that I'm wrong without actulal counterargument. You did this a lot, pretty much that is your whole argument.

I brought my part of the argument here (my personal expereinces of bloodthirsty veganism through my brother), but you don't want to discuss that, because you say somehow I injected the subject into the discussion, while it was my base motivation for the whole thing (that's a piece of bull****ting from your part too).

Funny link, thank you. It shows that you read something before that is behind a paywall for me. Quite the counterspit. But let's say that it proves your 70% talk. What makes you think that my reasons belong to that 70%? Especially how you don't even want to listen to those reasons.

 

[Flin Flon]

Sorry.

Paste the link here.
https://www.sci-hub.tw/

I brought my part of the argument here (my personal expereinces of bloodthirsty veganism through my brother), but you don't want to discuss that, because you say somehow I injected the subject into the discussion, while it was my base motivation for the whole thing (that's a piece of bull****ting from your part too).

I'm sorry, are you putting the burden of you being understood given the context and subject on me? I never showed an interest in your personal story. However, you did communicate a sentiment in a manner that could reasonably be interpreted as 1. encompassing all vegans 2. in agreement with the article. You've conceded both points so I don't care anymore.

The bull****ting part is where you say that I'm wrong without actulal counterargument. You did this a lot, pretty much that is your whole argument.

Why are you pivoting? I very specifically asked where I'm bull****ting with regard to my 'operant conditioning' argument.

 

[Bromden]

I've never showed an interest in your arrogant bull**** either, but I at least made an attempt to find substance in it. I see I can't expect the same from you. No wonder you don't understand what I want to say; you simply don't want to.

 

[Adorno]

Sorry to intervene...


The German army posted vintage - retro - Nazi uniform 
https://www.dw.com/en/bundeswehr-apologizes-for-retro-nazi-uniform-on-instagram/a-51438822

"fashion is also one aspect. Even today, elements of military style are part of haute couture."

Spoiler

 

[Do not look here]

Oh great, yet another remake is coming.

 

[El Perro Finlandese]

I don't see a swastika?

 

[Do not look here]

The crow is holding one.

 

[crodio]

Nazi fashion is Alive and well thanks to Boss and Chanel tho

 

[kurczak]

...

We're probably talking about two different things. You're talking about having a blank mind and the consciously working your way to an opinion on something , I'm talking about how to go about changing the mind of someone who already thinks a thing about the thing

It's pretty much marketing. You're selling an idea. Sure, a well thought out idea sells better, all other things equal. But it is neither necessary nor sufficient.

Spoiler

You just know a person is going to be a delight when the first thing they tell you about themselves is that they have a PhD

 

[Feragorn]

oh, please. It's typical for professorial types, even if it's lame

 

[TheFlyingFishy]

Yea, it's so common even I do it, and I've only ever been on a college campus for church camp and to watch the Vols play basketball.