Critical Thinking addendum: Remember to discuss/argue/debate in the higher ranges (Graham's Hierarchy)
(media.greatawakening.win)
Comments (35)
sorted by:
Saved
Hey.....Eyes on your own paper.
But if the person is stuck in cognitive dissonance beyond repair, combining the entire pyramid is totally fair.
Don't believe me? Watch how 45 does it.
That's true, but the problem is those low levels waste massive amounts of time and energy for little return on investment. Sure, trolling is fun, and it's ok to play with it in small calculated doses for comedic value, memes, or to get the other party to expose. But this is more of a guide to help in discussion to identify the low-energy zone, and stay out of it, or use it to your advantage.
It also wastes massive amounts of their time and energy.
Which even if you cheese your way through victory (Capcom term) the last blow will still mean you win, which if you follow up with the green area afterwards, they accept on a small level because you've beaten the animal brain.
Source: Arguing with jews, hood rats, cult members, and stubborn people with too much money.
true too, and you can learn a lot, even build a good foundation doing that. But through the more you learn, eventually the time comes where the need to focus on higher concepts becomes the greater desire :)
And once you pass that stage, you will learn that the higher concepts can only apply to people who are willing to use them.
Sun Tzu
Not every debate stage relies on academia, which is why a synthesis will ultimately prevail. POTUS shows the way.
Choosing either side is like bringing a sword to a gunfight.
that's true too, but there's still more yet beyond that :D
You're not wrong; and another beyond that, of course. However, rationalizing yourself into nothingness, will still leaves your ass anchored in the physical realm. That statement alone, has multiple sides worth meditating on.
Some people pay hard amounts of money to learn that.
honestly anon, i've had the opportunity to see the full spectrum of good and evil, i can't get into detail, but money can only get someone so far. After i saw the good end, i started aiming for it after i returned (it's not possible to get there for long in this world right now.. there is too much evil) The best i can express in this vein is that even Michael and Jesus didn't say anything bad about the one at the end of the evil side of the spectrum. Something to meditate on
Source: http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
You may have to click “Read more” to see the full text.
This is a part of literally every argument on the internet, therefore it must be important to include. Suggesting it is something to be avoided proves this list is flawed, and anyone who believes this list properly suggests good argumentative skills is an ass hat.
likened to someone wearing a mouth nose mask to protect himself from a non-existent virus with a survival rate of 99,89% while traveling alone in an automobile with the windows shut.......
Thanks, IMHO this is important for us to remember.
Socrates: "You agree, Thermippos, that all men are mortal."
Thermippos: "I do."
S: "And you agree furthermore that I am a man."
T: "I have no reason to doubt it, Socrates."
S: "Surely then you agree that I am mortal."
T: "I didn't say that. You did. Don't put words in my mouth."
S: "I beg your pardon, Thermippos, but I have simply drawn what follows."
T: "Strawman."
S: "But no true reasoner could fail--"
T: "Ah, the no-true-Macedonian fallacy."
S: "But, Thermippos, given the logical form..."
T: "Define 'logical form.'"
S: "...You must either accept the conclusion or reject at least one of the premises."
T: "False dichotomy."
S: "I see, Thermippos. You're an idiot."
T: "And that's an ad hominem."
And where did the parties split .... right from the beginning.
But very entertaining indeed! Thanks!
Refuting the central point is RACIST, YOU HITLER WANNABE BIGOT!
And at the very bottom of the period would be what I find when trying to discuss issues with Democrats - Run and Hide
make a post! It's good to understand fallacies to avoid them!
Debate and discussion only has value if both sides equally honor actual true facts to the same degree.
true facts is a nice pleonasm.
Except it's not.
A true fact is different from a falsity stated as fact, or, a false fact.
Not all facts are equal.
That would be a factoid.
a factoid is a mini fact. small. a tiny thing.
Like Pluto. Not big enough to be the real deal. An oid of a thing.
1973, "published statement taken to be a fact because of its appearance in print," from fact + -oid, first explained, if not coined, by Norman Mailer.
Something to be taken as a fact which you refer to as a false fact as opposed to " true" fact with the added bonus of appearing in print: called misinformation, fake news, etc.
and it's tiny, like a planetoid. A planetoid, not a real planet because it's too small.
Therefore, oid means tiny.
Heh.
Agreed. And it is not a real planet....
Hahahaha
Ok. Clarification needed. If the central point is that the person you are dealing with is a delusional asswad. Isnt calling them such refuting the central point?
Well, you would first have to focus on the "asswad" part. Is it brown nosing, brown tongueing also known as rimming .... or something else, post or pre-relief, please, elaborate?
If I use two of the top, can I add in one on the bottom?
Just so it averages out in the positive.