420chan now has a web-based IRC client available, right here
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
Comment
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


Community Updates

420chan now supports HTTPS! If you find any issues, you may report them in this thread
Am I wrong to be pissed off about reductionism in rhetoric? by Albert Pickville - Mon, 09 Apr 2018 22:17:38 EST ID:VhdWon+z No.209054 Ignore Report Quick Reply
File: 1523326658031.png -(249250B / 243.41KB, 500x491) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 249250
Can- can I just through this out here while I'm baked enough to do so.

Am I an asshole for getting legitimately intellectually pissed off when I see some fucking reductionist bullshit either in Political news or otherwise?

I ultimately understand that from a "ethical" standpoint I should let people believe "that which they wish to" but when it's so fucking stupid and either morally or factually too simplistic or out of context or talking cross purposes or using logical fallacies or literally any god dam thing any rational person can think of.

Am I WRONG for getting actually "annoyed" on an intellectual level, not a personal one? I've studied, I'm read, I'm in college, I've suffered the bullshit of academia, I've been in this since BEFORE 2016. So- am- am I wrong to be insulted?
>>
Esther Werryway - Mon, 09 Apr 2018 22:50:03 EST ID:ogjfl7YN No.209055 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1523328603098.png -(14103B / 13.77KB, 300x330) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
No, but keep in mind that the level of emotional intensity you feel at something being wrong is NOT an indication of the relative importance of its wrongness.

Beating your head against a brick wall is very painful, but you wouldn't say that makes it worthwhile.
>>
Albert Pickville - Mon, 09 Apr 2018 23:53:53 EST ID:VhdWon+z No.209056 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209055
And I agree. That's totally fair. I often have to remind myself of what you've said about the head banging.

I often wonder if there's an on objective "line" one can reach where you just have to walk away when it comes to the problem.
>>
Phyllis Decklebanks - Thu, 12 Apr 2018 05:55:13 EST ID:cR5+dCK2 No.209076 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209056

Walking away is the worst you can do from a moral and ethical standpoint. Whatever bullshit somebody shits out there will always be a grain of truth in it which you can latch onto so that you do not simply go against what they say. There is a lot more to ppl speaking than what they explicitly say
>>
Phyllis Decklebanks - Thu, 12 Apr 2018 05:56:24 EST ID:cR5+dCK2 No.209077 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209054
if you are so well read you should know by now ppl and the world around them
>>
Samuel Pisslebudge - Sun, 15 Apr 2018 13:29:39 EST ID:hbTtukSa No.209088 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209054

Were you ever gonna explain what's wrong with "reductionism" ??
>>
Henry Blorringway - Mon, 16 Apr 2018 16:09:57 EST ID:KdSY7mf7 No.209103 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209088
OP means 'sophistry' when he says 'reductionism.' He does explain what's wrong with sophists, which everyone should already know.
>>
Jack Nattingsutch - Mon, 16 Apr 2018 21:41:38 EST ID:VhdWon+z No.209105 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209088
I did.

>>209103
Ish. Sophistry- as I understand it, implies that the argument is plausible. I have no issues with arguments that can be described as "incomplete" what I do, more specifically, have issues with are arguments which begin with an overly simplistic understanding of the subject matter (read: literally anything) and then proceed through the argument.


Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.