Message from Bogatyr Bogumir in The Right Cafe #serious

2018-09-10 17:26:01 UTC  

just took the knife and bipped him 20 some times

2018-09-10 17:26:11 UTC  

the local populace nearly burned them alive in the store

2018-09-10 17:26:19 UTC  

Also serious question here

2018-09-10 17:27:51 UTC  

well we aren’t in <#452955229227319306> for nothing!

2018-09-10 17:31:44 UTC  

In debates we often here of the burden of proof, however I find that this along with the use of claiming logical fallacies is a method by which to shirk an equally important part of the debate, the burden of rebuttal. BEcause when one position is asserted, or argued with logic and is consistent and presents some logical basis by which it can be eveluated it has some value, however when one denies this with whatever fallacy they find helpful in the moment, and then deamands sources or shirks the burden of rebuttal.

The logic is this

P1 "Makes claim X, uses supporting logic based on basic knolwedge or simply logic" (Argument has value)

P2: "I dont believe your claim, also thats a logical fallacy Y, provide sources or you are wrong"

P1: "I gave a logical example, I will explain why this is not a fallacy or expand my position, cna you disprove my position."

P2: "Burden of proof is on you bucko, thats a fallacy that I have any burden." (P2's statement, even if it is negative of the position of P1, has less value as it is not argued for, nor does it have evidence presented.

There is also I see an issue of people throwing out demands for citations and evidence when a theory is based or an argument is based off of the conclusion of knowledge that the person has prior to the discussion. And then presents this in their argument.

It all seems like very disingenious argumentation and I feel like we should acknowledge that there is a burden of rebuttal because if P1 is simply an assertion, and P2 that they dont believe that assertion and dismiss it, or say its stupid and wrong without any argument to the contrary, then both statements have equal value.

2018-09-10 17:32:59 UTC  

Sorry for the long post but its just been getting to me when debating leftists that they constantly use hitchens razor, which in itself is written incorectly because it essentially falsifies itself. or rather removes its own value. Then there is this extreme appeal to authority and basing and throwing their own opinion and thoughts in line of the authority. Its absurd and obnoxious as all fuck

2018-09-10 17:34:20 UTC  

Most of them just start shouting fallacy as soon as you put any argument forward anyway, tbh

2018-09-10 17:36:24 UTC  

The progressives and especially the communists view you as a fucking threat to society which should be shamed, unemployed and homeless just for having an opinion thats not mainstream and right wing.

2018-09-10 17:37:31 UTC  

They don't like debating. Not because they think they will lose but because they don't think normalization of right wing views should fall on them

2018-09-10 17:38:38 UTC  

Also I saw this argumentation style used in a video with JFG, frame games and liberal sanity project. He didnt use fallacies however he simply ran around squaking about citations and authority and not being able to question it. It seems like wo models, the above would be the leftist atheist model, and the second i just described the typical progressive.

2018-09-10 17:39:22 UTC  

It doesn't matter if you're an Neo-Reactionary, It doesn't matter if you're a paleocon, it doesn't matter matter if you work for ICE, it doesn't matter if you're simply against communism, in their eyes, you should be killed.

2018-09-10 17:39:59 UTC  

Anything left of them is a NaHzeE

2018-09-10 17:43:29 UTC  

@FearAndTrembling tbh, I think this graph explains why leftists don't like civil discourse

2018-09-10 17:43:50 UTC  

The percentages are for support of all speech

2018-09-10 17:44:05 UTC  


2018-09-10 17:44:08 UTC  

Doesn't surprise me

2018-09-10 17:44:36 UTC  

I dont know what im looking at in this graph is it racial IQ?

2018-09-10 17:44:41 UTC  


2018-09-10 17:44:43 UTC  


2018-09-10 17:44:46 UTC  

makes sense now

2018-09-10 17:44:47 UTC  


2018-09-10 17:44:55 UTC  

stll the style of argumentation is my main issue

2018-09-10 17:45:36 UTC  

its IMO not legitimate in the slightest and makes you look good if you throw it in with a word salad and some accusations. However in the publics conscious burden of rebuttal and value of arguments has been brutally warped

2018-09-10 17:45:56 UTC  

(the style i mentioned in tha tmassive post not the IQ thing)

2018-09-10 17:47:30 UTC  

I mean this is an issue for us simply ecause you can run around with facts however you need more advanced theories derived from thoe facts in order to form an ideology and convince people to it. If the burden is only on the person asserting a position then there is literally no way to win. Because if ther eis no direct evidence you are fucked. (you also cant even argue then morality and ethics)

2018-09-10 17:50:15 UTC

Also this is present in research papers, the obfuscatio and simply denial is brutal. "We have this data but if we do this complex vodoo shit its all poverty n shit. However the data confirms that diversity lowers social trust, but just in the short term.... even though ethnicities self segregate but ignore that".

Aight im done, gonna go study

2018-09-10 17:51:55 UTC  

I've come to the conclusion that college is dying. As the average IQ of american youth gets lower due to ethnic minorities(and maybe some chemicals in products that youth use), the barrier of entry to college will inevitably get smaller. College will then become nearly worthless, as the curriculum gets dumbed down and millions of youth end up worse off than if they had simply spent those four years looking for employment

2018-09-10 17:52:14 UTC  

Never underestimate the mental gymnastics some academics are capable of

2018-09-10 17:52:23 UTC  

I mean isnt it already brutally low

2018-09-10 17:52:51 UTC  

maybe getting in might be a challange but most courses are becoming idiot proof, retarded half brain jimmy could pass.

2018-09-10 17:54:17 UTC  

What fucking sucks for me is that I have an IQ in the 140s but I have to do like 5x the work that a minority with an IQ of 90 does just to get into the same college. I see extremely bright people at my school going to universities very few people know about just because my school is nearly 90% white

2018-09-10 17:55:10 UTC  

@Bogatyr Bogumir Its going to affect STEM too. Once they start trying to diversify STEM, college will become useless

2018-09-10 17:56:12 UTC  

If that happens, I might as well go to college later and learn the shit myself, while also learning a trade.

2018-09-10 17:57:16 UTC  

I fucked up my SAT got some 1450, meanwhile now im a med student in what is unfortunately the hardest med school in Poland. The people that pass usually use old questions etc. and or cheat, something the indians at our school ar notorious for.

2018-09-10 17:57:47 UTC  

tbh, I think Bernie is actually a genius for securing a democratic majority. If college is free, than everyone will be indoctrinated

2018-09-10 17:57:49 UTC  

However those participating in science circles, or student orgs, are bright but the more we diversify english division the simpler everything is becoming.

2018-09-10 17:58:18 UTC  

(and for being the hardest med uni, we arent even the best, how the fuck that works i dont know)

2018-09-10 17:58:22 UTC  

true that

2018-09-10 17:58:43 UTC  

Bernie can be a legitimate threat IMO depending on how the future pans out

2018-09-10 17:59:02 UTC  

further radicalization or making of right wing views distasteful might give him just enough to win, if he runs again