tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4348130769134551863.post8801853024960795427..comments2024-03-08T19:49:06.001-05:00Comments on No Bad Memes: You don't know how to argueLeaving Societyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00470369778004725601noreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4348130769134551863.post-20108397555873546742023-02-14T08:47:27.044-05:002023-02-14T08:47:27.044-05:00My blog was posted on reddit? lol. It was also pos...My blog was posted on reddit? lol. It was also posted on Something Awful way back when, probably for similar reasons. Weird how people thought I was Adam Lanza, even though I never condoned, you know, murder, which is sort of the antithesis of everything this blog was about back then. Regardless of the reading comprehension of the people who've recently stumbled upon this, though, I can't say that I condone the majority of the views espoused here anymore, and the early 2010's were indeed a miserable time in my life, when I was younger and naive to the power of Internet echo chambers. Antinatalism has some fundamental logic that is sound, but the extreme ends of it (Inmendham's EFILism) are indeed insane, and I prefer a more positive approach to life now -- in fact, I'm very pro-nature where it matters, even if animal suffering is still a concern there. But there's nothing we can do to end suffering for all time on planet Earth, so we might as well live how we evolved to live to the best of our abilities and enjoy the time we have.<br /><br />Thanks for the sarcasm, though. Ex fuckin' dee, bro.Leaving Societyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00470369778004725601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4348130769134551863.post-5752054920239177492021-09-16T05:29:02.236-04:002021-09-16T05:29:02.236-04:00Hi Reddit!!!! *tips fedorahh* those darn homosexua...Hi Reddit!!!! *tips fedorahh* those darn homosexual mods amiright? xD el oh el hehehe woooooo who dis adam lanza boi????Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4348130769134551863.post-90119457288973770772021-09-13T12:00:24.523-04:002021-09-13T12:00:24.523-04:00aaaaaaanonisehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01493176865200111508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4348130769134551863.post-44657281847416802702012-11-22T16:03:46.815-05:002012-11-22T16:03:46.815-05:00By the way, the whole purpose of the SomethingAwfu...By the way, the whole purpose of the SomethingAwful experiment was to see how a community of bigoted knee-jerkers would react upon realizing that they're being "watched." I find it fascinating that a group can "secretly" but publicly discuss a public artifact.Leaving Societyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00470369778004725601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4348130769134551863.post-53382579542787019232012-11-22T12:07:42.698-05:002012-11-22T12:07:42.698-05:00I stopped replying to this person because of the a...I stopped replying to this person because of the absurd redundancy that was mounting, but I just noticed something that probably does warrant elucidation:<br /><br />You can state that you are not an authority on logic while having previously stated otherwise, or while <i>acting</i> to the contrary. Your being a hypocrite isn't somehow going to trump my statement that you convey the sense of being an authority on logic.<br /><br />You obviously have respect for authority, at the very least -- and, beyond that, a belief that communicated authority holds a monopoly on education, a monopoly which you happily participate in and endorse. You have hatched from your larva and are now one with the monopoly. "Buy our corporate lemonade instead of the lemonade from the kid on the corner; it's the 'official' kind!"<br /><br />I can murder a hundred people after madly ranting into a camera the day before and then later claim that I never killed anyone or said what I did, but how does the latter statement hold any weight whatsoever? Who cares that you later stated that you're not an authority on logic? Logic isn't a simple game where the variables are limited to isolated sentence fragments.<br /><br />Anyway, regardless of your delusions regarding acquisition of proper cognitive tools, I'm not seeing much substance to your comments, so that's that, I suppose. Your use of terms and phrases such as "bag of tricks," "picking arguments," "backed yourself into," "rubbing your face into the dirt," "powerful" (in reference to my intellect), etc. betray your value disorder, your preoccupation with argument as entertainment.<br /><br />See ya!Leaving Societyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00470369778004725601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4348130769134551863.post-58233102867427400652012-11-05T09:35:39.239-05:002012-11-05T09:35:39.239-05:00would like to share my own views on antinatalism:
...would like to share my own views on antinatalism:<br />http://himanshusingh37.blogspot.in/2012/10/my-theory-of-life-and-people.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4348130769134551863.post-78527628600254044832012-11-03T05:29:04.842-04:002012-11-03T05:29:04.842-04:00"ARE YOU INTERESTED IN LEAVING SOCIETY COMPLE..."ARE YOU INTERESTED IN LEAVING SOCIETY COMPLETELY, DRASTICALLY REFORMING THE FUNDAMENTS OF SOCIETY, OR AT LEAST DISCUSSING WHAT TO DO ABOUT LIFE AS A PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED?"<br /><br />No, I'm interested in _changing_ society so that the right to die gets legalized. Then, I can kill myself peacfully (too afraid of N2, I want barbiturates) and be done with it. Life sucks, there is no need to create a need. I want answers! I want meaning!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4348130769134551863.post-75020569433377564992012-11-02T11:53:36.545-04:002012-11-02T11:53:36.545-04:00I have -- not in the slightest -- been -- not very...I have -- not in the slightest -- been -- not very dearly -- in -- whereever -- a house. Ah! Oh! Uh! How, uh, it -- in terms of function -- matters, I do not -- why yes, no! -- know, but I -- oh! ah! yeeh! -- have not, dearly clearly, stand by it! It?! It! When, uh, where, uh, ah, uh, I will ever work as a -- in the dreamiest of states -- consultant it ain't worth it or dear it, I would smear it. When I, yikes!, have it done so, I will do it. clearly, my reasons -- uh, oh, ah -- are, uh, in terms of function, dear.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4348130769134551863.post-84782708236449787882012-10-15T18:07:49.485-04:002012-10-15T18:07:49.485-04:00So is that bag of tricks empty yet?
Yep, I'd ...<i>So is that bag of tricks empty yet?</i><br /><br />Yep, I'd say so. 24 hours is plenty of time to allow you a response. Looks like you turned tail and ran from that corner you backed yourself into. It's been a pleasure rubbing your face into the dirt, Leaving Society. <br /><br />In the future, you might want to stick to picking arguments with forums full of dullards such as yourself. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4348130769134551863.post-13153945416100032092012-10-14T18:10:57.878-04:002012-10-14T18:10:57.878-04:00" It doesn't matter how I "spin"...<i>" It doesn't matter how I "spin" what you say or what I do to make you look bad so long as your original words remain for all to read and interpret for themselves."</i><br /><br />What on earth makes you think I'd have a problem with this? Hell, <i>I'm banking on it.</i> You're so detached from reality that you think you can artfully manipulate a debate that you know you've lost from the very beginning. Your audience -- of who I am sure is very limited -- will be able to see how you:<br /><br />1. ignored an offer to bring in not one, but several accepted authorities on the subject and when that didn't work,<br /><br />2. you made a weak, transparent attempt to avoid the issue altogether by trying to frame it as me getting someone else to speak for me. And you're <b>still begging me to let you off the hook:</b><i>"Why not cite sources for everything, including the notion that people die sometime after they are born?"</i> No, Leaving Society. I have you backed into a corner and all the weasel words in your repertoire won't let you slip out of this one.<br /><br />It's taking its toll on you, because your exacerbated state is starting to show and you're now having to rely on even more childish tactics like putting words in my mouth. <i>"Since you irrationally believe that Wikipedia's articles on logical fallacies are nonfactual,"</i> Where did I say this? The only thing I've ever said is Wikipedia doesn't pass the muster as a citable source. <br /><br /><i>"Would it hurt your pride to be "forced" to let someone else speak for you?"</i> <br /><br />No, but your case it would work wonders for your credibility, which is currently slumming in the negative digits. <br /><br />Also, for such a powerful intellect as yours, you have no reading comprehension. You reply <i>"Seriously, it's dishonest to declare yourself the master of logic and then pawn the job off on "sources."</i> to the <b>very fucking post where I stated</b> <i>"As for me, I'm not an authority on logic. I never said I was. What I am is modest enough to know when to defer to the authority on a matter," </i><br /><br /><i>"If I'm "trapping" you by pointing out that you're taking the long way around, who cares?"</i> Speak up, Leaving Society! I can't hear you from that hole you dug yourself into!<br /><br /><i>"You know, in a corporate environment, I've watched firsthand as people have been fired for repeatedly failing to deliver proof that their credentials are real."</i> I hate to tell you this, but your experiences in this corporate environment (you forgot to mention if it was McDonalds or Burger King) haven't taught you a single thing about how the rest of the world operates. <br /><br />So is that bag of tricks empty yet?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4348130769134551863.post-61404608359727532922012-10-14T16:26:13.691-04:002012-10-14T16:26:13.691-04:00"You know, in a corporate environment" L..."You know, in a corporate environment" Leaving Society confirmed as Objectivist Randian Corporate Nazi Scum.LoveJoynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4348130769134551863.post-6195373818609010222012-10-14T16:21:36.321-04:002012-10-14T16:21:36.321-04:00Antinatalism doesn't work because nothing does...Antinatalism doesn't work because nothing does not noth. Read Eckhart Tolle.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4348130769134551863.post-22828004528801228472012-10-14T16:06:14.271-04:002012-10-14T16:06:14.271-04:00Considering that the original link barely had anyt...Considering that the original link barely had anything to do with me and that none of the quotes in the original post applied to me, I don't see how any of that could be true.<br /><br />I saw a thread where antinatalists -- none of whom I even know personally -- were getting a bad rap while the philosophy itself was getting strawmanned to hell, so I figured I'd make a post with a provocative title about it. That's all, bro culture participant.Leaving Societyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00470369778004725601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4348130769134551863.post-62343790511118608482012-10-14T15:53:50.406-04:002012-10-14T15:53:50.406-04:00Which was never my argument. Oh no! Strawman! L...Which was never <i>my</i> argument. Oh no! Strawman! Looks like you automatically lose! My commiserations, bro.<br /><br />I'm saying not everything is an attempt to disprove your philosophy (I use the term loosely). But you're so wrapped up in your agenda that you didn't even consider that. Every insult is an ad hominem, every behavioural criticism a strawman or a guilt-by-association fallacy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4348130769134551863.post-73193752036600474662012-10-14T15:42:06.904-04:002012-10-14T15:42:06.904-04:00You're sidestepping. I'm asking you to bac...You're sidestepping. I'm asking you to back up the claim that I don't know what I'm arguing with, not the claim that I don't care why what I'm arguing with exists.Leaving Societyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00470369778004725601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4348130769134551863.post-54799736675355651552012-10-14T15:39:05.972-04:002012-10-14T15:39:05.972-04:00You just said you don't care what the intent w...You just said you don't care what the intent was. Are you asking me to scroll up for you now so you can read your own comments?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4348130769134551863.post-46942078809460524022012-10-14T15:26:56.527-04:002012-10-14T15:26:56.527-04:00There has to be a new word for the kind of irony e...There has to be a new word for the kind of irony employed when reducing a philosophical standpoint of relatively substantial magnitude and gravity to reductionism.Leaving Societyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00470369778004725601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4348130769134551863.post-55251564856455618392012-10-14T15:25:18.751-04:002012-10-14T15:25:18.751-04:00Back up the claim that I don't know what I'...Back up the claim that I don't know what I'm arguing with.<br /><br />Make it your next reply or don't reply.Leaving Societyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00470369778004725601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4348130769134551863.post-89342828977455789422012-10-14T15:22:15.194-04:002012-10-14T15:22:15.194-04:00The only way that this discussion could be stacked...The only way that this discussion could be stacked in my favor would be if I were to put real restrictions in place that would actually prevent you from typing. It doesn't matter how I "spin" what you say or what I do to make you look bad so long as your original words remain for all to read and interpret for themselves. Given this, I suspect that you have nothing to back up anything that you've said, and were banking on my backing down out of fear of being put in my place by some guy with a degree in logic.<br /><br />Since you irrationally believe that Wikipedia's articles on logical fallacies are nonfactual, here are some links:<br /><br /><a href="http://fallacies.findthedata.org/l/23/Bare-assertion-fallacy" rel="nofollow">Bare assertion fallacy</a><br /><br /><a href="http://fallacies.findthedata.org/l/82/Appeal-to-authority" rel="nofollow">Appeal to authority</a><br /><br />I said that I would determine the plausibility of the rationale used to undermine my points regardless of the source of the rationale; if it's you, fine, but if it's a journal, that's also fine, and irrelevant to your inefficiency and status as middle man. I'm not here to force you to argue for yourself; if someone else is better at it, then the logical thing to do is to bring in the links.<br /><br />Would it hurt your pride to be "forced" to let someone else speak for you? It sounds like how you look is more important to you than being right. There's nothing wrong with letting someone else speak for you; just don't come into a place screaming at the top of your lungs about how someone is intellectually inferior for not going to your school and then step aside so that someone else can provide the supporting evidence -- especially if the "someone else" never shows. Seriously, it's dishonest to declare yourself the master of logic and then pawn the job off on "sources."<br /><br />And in general, where do we draw the line between where sources are absolutely necessary and where they are not? Why cite sources for fallacies but not for just about every other component of your paragraphs? That kind of selectivity indicates a bias toward only those facets of the communication for which you have formal training. Why not cite sources for everything, including the notion that people die sometime after they are born?<br /><br />If I'm "trapping" you by pointing out that you're taking the long way around, who cares? That doesn't make you physically incapable of presenting the sources, does it?<br /><br />You know, in a corporate environment, I've watched firsthand as people have been fired for repeatedly failing to deliver proof that their credentials are real. It's sort of a big deal when people get all loud over and over again with promises of eventually backing up their voluminous accusations and then embarrass themselves when they fail.Leaving Societyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00470369778004725601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4348130769134551863.post-68432872256268632572012-10-14T15:08:23.197-04:002012-10-14T15:08:23.197-04:00You neither know nor care what you're arguing ...You neither know nor care what you're arguing with, and you don't see why that's funny? Of course you don't.<br /><br />Opine all you like dude, nobody's going to stop you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4348130769134551863.post-76282876129952918892012-10-14T14:14:14.189-04:002012-10-14T14:14:14.189-04:00"Your agenda is to explain to me why I don...<i>"Your agenda is to explain to me why I don't know what logic is, yet you refuse to counter my poor logic with good logic by participating in the debates. "</i><br /><br /><b>Translation:</b> <i>"Why aren't you playing my game by my rules that are stacked in my favor?"</i><br /><br />Because in the real world we go by a set of standards that have to pass the muster of not one, but many representatives of a field. I think I've made this point perfectly clear many times, but as we've seen, you are incapable of digesting a concept that would cause you to question this aggrandized image you've imagined for yourself. <br /><br />For instance, your insistence on using Wikipedia as a source. What you call my "elementary" disdain for Wikipedia is better termed as "scholastic" as no accredited institution would allow such a source that can be <i><b>edited by literally anyone.</b></i> I mean, really, are you so dense that you can't see that one glaring flaw that discounts it as a whole? Then again, it's painfully obvious that you've never had to submit yourself to any sort of academic discipline. And no, that incredibly flexible and convenient one you've constructed for yourself doesn't count.<br /><br /><i>"By the way, while I welcome any citations from accredited journals, let the record show that it is inefficient to have someone else speak for you in that capacity. If you cannot say yourself why I don't know what an ad hominem or a composition fallacy is, then you're in trouble.<br />But sure, let's have an accredited journal speak for you while you take a seat for a bit. Let's see how riddled with appeals to authority this is going to get."</i><br /><br />And with yet another stunning example of your intellectual cowardice, this is how you deflect my offer to bring substance to the table -- by clearly stating that you'll "allow" me to bring accreditation into the discussion only so you can shunt it aside as "speaking for me." That's cute. First you tried to ignore my offer, now you're scrambling to discount it. What are you so afraid of? Why are you so desperate to fix the playing field to your favor if you're such an intellect to be reckoned with?<br /><br />It's because you know you're wrong, but your predictably fragile ego won't allow you to admit it. You perceive any form of correction as a personal attack. You wouldn't last five fucking seconds in a real academic setting because it would require you to step out of this self-aggrandized fantasy that you've created for yourself.<br /><br />As for me, I'm not an authority on logic. I never said I was. What I am is modest enough to know when to defer to the authority on a matter, which you try to label as "others speaking for me." Now, look at what I quoted of yours up there. It's pretty clear that you consider yourself to be such an authority because of the incredibly foolish notion that you "speak for yourself" which again proves the fact that work only from your own set of infinitely flexible standards. How many times do you have to be told that the real world doesn't work that way? Are you going to stay five years old for the rest of your natural life? <br /><br />Which brings us right back to the heart of the matter: the only place where your defective ideals and corny verbiage have any merit is in your dim little mind, which is surrounded by defensive mechanisms that are set to go off whenever objectivity rears its mean, <i>scary</i> head. These are the hallmarks of both a hypocrite and an intellectual coward. <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4348130769134551863.post-7699773181203359232012-10-14T12:48:47.019-04:002012-10-14T12:48:47.019-04:00Nuh-uh, structural realism undermines naive reduct...Nuh-uh, structural realism undermines naive reductionism and reveals the existence of enduring structures. You'd know this if you read Deepak Chopra instead of Mein Kampf.LoveJoynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4348130769134551863.post-39926025289355430722012-10-14T11:11:23.713-04:002012-10-14T11:11:23.713-04:00"You are a blowhard who doesn't know what...<i>"You are a blowhard who doesn't know what logic is"</i><br /><br />This needs supporting sentences.<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipse_dixit" rel="nofollow">Bare assertion fallacy</a><br /><br /><i>"you don't know what a sound or valid argument is"</i><br /><br />This needs supporting sentences.<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipse_dixit" rel="nofollow">Bare assertion fallacy</a><br /><br /><i>"you save me the effort by going out of your way to prove my point:"</i><br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence" rel="nofollow">Self-evidence fallacy</a><br /><br /><i>"Where you clearly state that the only standard you hold yourself is to your own,"</i><br /><br />What you quoted does not mention myself or how I came to understand logic.<br /><br /><i>"like a true intellectual coward you expect the rest of the world to play by the book and even then you know next to nothing about how that’s supposed to be carried out either."</i><br /><br />This needs supporting sentences.<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipse_dixit" rel="nofollow">Bare assertion fallacy</a><br /><br /><i>"You don’t know what a logical fallacy is"</i><br /><br />This needs supporting sentences.<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipse_dixit" rel="nofollow">Bare assertion fallacy</a><br /><br /><i>"Again, you make my case for me:"</i><br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence" rel="nofollow">Self-evidence fallacy</a><br /><br /><i>"your method of rationalization has become quite adept at nitpicking and glossing over semantics."</i><br /><br />This needs supporting sentences.<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipse_dixit" rel="nofollow">Bare assertion fallacy</a><br /><br /><i>"One fine example of this detachment to reality that you have going on is how you have the arrogance to order people on how to go about replying to your bullshit. 'If I've mischaracterized every single one of the points made against mine, then please type up a comment comparing and contrasting my mischaracterization with the real points.' QED."</i><br /><br />Oh man, please forgive me for imploring you to do the default thing during a debate involving strawmen by showing the audience what the real versions of the arguments are. What was I thinking for assuming that that was step one in any debate where accusations of strawmen are being flung around frivolously?Leaving Societyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00470369778004725601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4348130769134551863.post-55028376856821137732012-10-14T10:52:06.551-04:002012-10-14T10:52:06.551-04:00Oh, and for anyone interested in why this maliciou...Oh, and for anyone interested in why this malicious anonymous guy has absolutely nothing going for him other than rhetoric, read the entire first section below:<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence</a><br /><br />Oops, I'm automatically wrong about this because alphanumeric characters in the URL are arranged in a manner indicating that this comes from people who are always wrong no matter what!Leaving Societyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00470369778004725601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4348130769134551863.post-61038362986536586412012-10-14T10:48:08.942-04:002012-10-14T10:48:08.942-04:00By the way, while I welcome any citations from acc...By the way, while I welcome any citations from accredited journals, let the record show that it is inefficient to have someone else speak for you in that capacity. If you cannot say yourself why I don't know what an <i>ad hominem</i> or a composition fallacy is, then you're in trouble.<br /><br />But sure, let's have an accredited journal speak for you while you take a seat for a bit. Let's see how riddled with appeals to authority this is going to get.Leaving Societyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00470369778004725601noreply@blogger.com