It immediately redirects me to some subscription page and if anything it wants me to AT LEAST log in before I can continue to that article.
forum
ITT 2: We post shit that is neither funny nor interesting
posted
Total Posts
56,184
I'm not teaching soldiers. I'm basically qualified to teach Hebrew so I'm working at middle/higshschools and in the evenings I work with that they call 'youth at risk'. you could say it's like social service on army uniform, tbh...but I did go through bootcamp and a course and all that shit. It sounds all fun and dandy until you get your schedule and you see you have 12 working hours excluding the drives I do a day lmao fuck my shit up famTanzklaue wrote:
what do you teach the soldiers?
also b1rd: this is the dumbest shit I've heard of in a while. I'm actually speechless
@lamey[b] the army man where are u
jeffrey dahmer was one fucked up individual.
sorry for replying late but I completely forgot that this argument happened (I even forgot about my involvement), but better late than never!Jordan wrote:
silmarilen wrote:
If it involves a fight between a man and a woman, don't take jordan seriously. He has a history of hating women in general regardless of what actually happened.
Unlike what tumblr people call mysoginist (basically anybody that isn't a woman agreeing with their point of view), i think he actually is one.
https://i.imgur.com/dtAOP0b.jpg
y'all remember that argument?
lol @ the possibility of me ever being wrong
The shit you spouted back then could have been valid if you had known of the screenshot back then, but alas you didn't.
All of the things we said back then are still just as valid, because they criticized your mindset, aka how you arrive at your decisions. Time has proven you correct in this instance (or at least it appears so for now), but that doesn't mean you're any less of an idiot. An example of how being technically correct doesn't prove that you're not a moron:
A: "HEY, the rain tonight is a bad omen because the rain gods told me so!"
B: "but wait, rain is just a natural phenomenon, it follows a patter, a pattern that you could calculate if you had enough time and computation powe.."
A: "NO, you're WRONG, just wait and you'll see!!"
- then some random bad shit happens to B
A: "See, I told you so, I was right and therefore my methodology is proven over this thing you call naturalism or balanced scepticism or whatever. Hail the rain gods!"
In other words: You're the A-guy, who is like "I told you so!!!". But no. I doubt that anything has changed and there still aren't any rain gods.
Who was in the screenshot and why are all these dweebs hating on Jordan
if you google Jordans quote, you should find the pages on ITT where the discussion happened.
No idea what you expect me to Google.
Anyone can point holes in someone's belief system. You can criticise the Ancient Israelites for only eating Kosher food because they thought that God would punish them otherwise. But even if that weren't correct, it still ended up protecting them from the multitude of parasites that you fin in pork that wasn't perfectly prepared, and from a practical standpoint they were more correct than the gentiles. That's the error of psuedo-intellectuals, they think that because they can point out a few logical inconsistencies in someone's belief system they can then attribute that entire system to irrationality. But it's a lot easier tear something down than to construct an entire system of values that will help you get along in the world, something most atheists lack.
Anyone can point holes in someone's belief system. You can criticise the Ancient Israelites for only eating Kosher food because they thought that God would punish them otherwise. But even if that weren't correct, it still ended up protecting them from the multitude of parasites that you fin in pork that wasn't perfectly prepared, and from a practical standpoint they were more correct than the gentiles. That's the error of psuedo-intellectuals, they think that because they can point out a few logical inconsistencies in someone's belief system they can then attribute that entire system to irrationality. But it's a lot easier tear something down than to construct an entire system of values that will help you get along in the world, something most atheists lack.
yehaj
B1rd wrote:
No idea what you expect me to Google.
Anyone can point holes in someone's belief system. You can criticise the Ancient Israelites for only eating Kosher food because they thought that God would punish them otherwise. But even if that weren't correct, it still ended up protecting them from the multitude of parasites that you fin in pork that wasn't perfectly prepared, and from a practical standpoint they were more correct than the gentiles. That's the error of psuedo-intellectuals, they think that because they can point out a few logical inconsistencies in someone's belief system they can then attribute that entire system to irrationality. But it's a lot easier tear something down than to construct an entire system of values that will help you get along in the world, something most atheists lack.
I don't know why you saw my example as an attack on theism, because it really wasn't. The only thing I wanted to demonstrate is that a correct result doesn't necessarily prove that your methodology is correct. In the case of the example: B gets run over by a car. A's prediction therefore turned out to be correct ("something bad will happen"), but his methodology was still utter garbage ("rain gods, obviously").
For context, google "If it involves a fight between a man and a woman, don't take jordan seriously. He has a history of hating women in general regardless of what actually happened.
Unlike what tumblr people call mysoginist (basically anybody that isn't a woman agreeing with their point of view), i think he actually is one."
Whether or not something has practical value is a different question. A heuristic or cultural norm can return correct values in certain situations, but fail horribly in other situations. The "no-meat"-cultural norm works really well when you have no way to sanitize your meat, but when you DO have a way, it becomes a useless garbage rule that imposes a mostly needless restriction. If you don't like that particular example, feel free to find a better one yourself, as there are many.
Jordans mysoginism sometimes happens to return correct values, in situations where the girl really does turn out to be a horrible person. In all other situations it goes horribly wrong and Jordan ends up being unhappy and alone because of it, if he doesn't change his methodology.
Googling that gives me nothing.
And yet value systems are often much more beneficial than not, because they have evolved over time and take in to account a large degree on social phenomena that aren't readily apparent to "rational" interpretation.
Calling Jordan a "misogynist" is a non-argument. And likely it ignores the underlying reasons as to why he believes what he does and just oversimplifies in into a claim that "he just hates all women". Considering that he was right about whatever he was right about indicates that his interpretations are more well-founded than yours.
And yet value systems are often much more beneficial than not, because they have evolved over time and take in to account a large degree on social phenomena that aren't readily apparent to "rational" interpretation.
Calling Jordan a "misogynist" is a non-argument. And likely it ignores the underlying reasons as to why he believes what he does and just oversimplifies in into a claim that "he just hates all women". Considering that he was right about whatever he was right about indicates that his interpretations are more well-founded than yours.
When you Google, leave out the " ".B1rd wrote:
Googling that gives me nothing.
And yet value systems are often much more beneficial than not, because they have evolved over time and take in to account a large degree on social phenomena that aren't readily apparent to "rational" interpretation.
Calling Jordan a "misogynist" is a non-argument. And likely it ignores the underlying reasons as to why he believes what he does and just oversimplifies in into a claim that "he just hates all women". Considering that he was right about whatever he was right about indicates that his interpretations are more well-founded than yours.
The second part of your post has Little to do with what I wrote. Sure, value systems are often beneficial, so what? What are you even arguing for at this point? You're just distracting from the original argument:
"Only because you happened to get a good result, doesn't mean that your methodology, aka the way how you arrived at your conclusion, was correct. THIS is what you responded to initially, so how the heck did we even end up agreeing over these platitudes? "Value Systems evolved over time", well no fucking shit and yes of course I agree, but what is your point and why are you even saying this? It has nothing to do with my initial statment, or with the discussion I was trying to have before you derailed it completely. Please just stop.
The second part of your post is completely irrelevant because you don't even know the topic. I was talking to Jordan anyway, not to you.
Misogynist is an ample description of Jordans behavioral bias, so what do you mean by "it's a non-argument?" Again, what's your point? I feel like half of the time what you're trying to say is so far away from what was being discussed, it's hard to have any sort of discussion at all. You bring up something thats only tangentially related, and then the argument devolves until it starts being about something completely different. This is no fun, no fun at all. This is why arguing with you never ends with a solid conclusion. I don't know how to keep going like this.
And likely it ignores the underlying reasons as to why he believes what he does and just oversimplifies in into a claim that "he just hates all women.
.. ok ? Of Course ist simplifying, I'm not a psychologist with 100 hours to waste on the most accurate Analysis of his state of mind. Whats your point?
Neither do I care about the underlying reasons. I was merely pointing it out in that argument that happened about 7 months ago, because I recognized the pattern. Fuck me. See? As soon as I go into this, you will respond to it with something else thats only tangentially related and that is exactly what I meant before. All you do here is derailing the topic.
How am I derailing? I was making the point that even if someone's methodology is incorrect, it may lead to a better outcome than someone who is technically correct, because often it takes into account a lot of other variables that are hard to cognize. Thus even if you refute someone's methodology it doesn't necessarily refute their claims. That is highly relevant to what you were saying, and considering you won't link to the source argument and instead give instructions that I have already said don't work, all I can do it argue in the abstract.
Calling someone a misogynists is just like calling someone a racist, a Nazi, a homophobe, a fascist, or any other buzzword pejoratives. It is not an argument, it is a conclusion. It does not adequately define what those words are in the context, it does not make a case for why a person is such a thing, and does not explain why that is a bad thing. It implies that a whole load of assumptions about the previously mentioned variables are true and self-evident, without actually presenting any argument why. Thus it's absolutely meaningless for debating with someone outside your ideological bubble. And rarely are those pejoratives even accurate in the first place.
And if you want to know why no argument ever reaches a conclusion, it's because you always derail the topic with a tirade of off-topic ad hominems.
Calling someone a misogynists is just like calling someone a racist, a Nazi, a homophobe, a fascist, or any other buzzword pejoratives. It is not an argument, it is a conclusion. It does not adequately define what those words are in the context, it does not make a case for why a person is such a thing, and does not explain why that is a bad thing. It implies that a whole load of assumptions about the previously mentioned variables are true and self-evident, without actually presenting any argument why. Thus it's absolutely meaningless for debating with someone outside your ideological bubble. And rarely are those pejoratives even accurate in the first place.
And if you want to know why no argument ever reaches a conclusion, it's because you always derail the topic with a tirade of off-topic ad hominems.
well, if you want the context of me and silmarilen calling Jordan a misogynist (and trust me, I really don't like using the word because it's been tainted so badly over the last years, but it really does fit to describe him), feel free to read up to Jordans history and the argument that happened about 7 months ago in ITT. For that, start on this page: t/145250/start=42225 The whole thing goes on for about 6 pages maybe? It's pretty long.
"Thus even if you refute someone's methodology it doesn't necessarily refute their claims."
This is just my initial statement (the example with A and B), taken in the opposite direction. All I've been saying this time is that the methodologies validity isn't necessarily tied to the validity of the conclusion. If you went through all of this trouble just to rephrase a facet of my initial statement, feel free to stop now.
I mostly agree with Jordan's conclusion as it is now. But he still doesn't have the right to be like "aha I told you so", because his methodology is garbage and the only reason why he got it right this time was pure chance. Just how A happened to be right when something bad happened to B.
"Thus even if you refute someone's methodology it doesn't necessarily refute their claims."
This is just my initial statement (the example with A and B), taken in the opposite direction. All I've been saying this time is that the methodologies validity isn't necessarily tied to the validity of the conclusion. If you went through all of this trouble just to rephrase a facet of my initial statement, feel free to stop now.
I mostly agree with Jordan's conclusion as it is now. But he still doesn't have the right to be like "aha I told you so", because his methodology is garbage and the only reason why he got it right this time was pure chance. Just how A happened to be right when something bad happened to B.
You're still not understanding my argument. Even if you understand the face logic behind how someone arrives at their conclusion, it doesn't mean that their method isn't a good tool for arriving at correct conclusions. When you talk about rain gods you have to realise that it's just a blatant strawman of people that you disagree with without giving their point of view a fair go, which is nothing but the hubris of a pseudo-intellectual. That's why I countered with the example of ancient Israel, if you were in that time, you might say "hah your God doesn't exist" so I will eat all the pork I want. And then die of a parasitical infection. Because like then, there is phenomena outside of our perception that influences behind how the world works, and if you want any real insight, it requires detailed analysis of the world. Not painting with a broad ideological brush and marking anyone you disagree with as a problematic and irrational group. So when you have a situation like this, where you side with the women, and Jordan sides with the man, and he turns out to be right, you can at least have the humility of admitting that his point of view might have some validity instead of dismissing him being right as just "blind luck".
He turned out to be right based on evidence that didn't appear until up to 6 months later, it totally could have gone both ways before that.
Look, I get your point I really do. There might be something I'm missing, neither of us is omniscient, maybe Jordan just happens to have intuitively grasped some minor detail and then subconsciously processed it to come to a conclusion that just looks like he's a blatant misogynist, but in the end he did have a crushingly greater chance of guessing the correct outcome. Maybe there was a metaphorical parasite in the meat that none of us could have spotted, but years and years of Jordan dealing with "crazy bitches" just made him amazing at spotting them without really knowing how he does it.
Sounds far-fetched? Because it is. And I'm not buying it for one second. Go ahead and call it arrogance, call it hubris, but I don't really care. If you think that there's some phenomenon outside of my perception that I could have missed, bring it up. Otherwise, I don't have much reason to listen to your objection. The tricky thing about your objection is, that you could apply it to any argument really. If your point is that I should be more humble... then that's fair enough. I could use some humility, sometimes. But trust me, in some cases it really isn't warranted. Certainly not in this case.
We all know that Jordan is a bit of an idiot, and it's no coincidence that he met so many "crazy bitches" before. It's been him along. Cue the argument 7 months ago.
Oh, and I'm aware that the rain gods are a "straw man". I used such a strong example to get the point about the relatedness of conclusion and methodology across as clearly as possible. Jordans case isn't nearly as extreme as the case of the rain gods, and I would never claim that it is. Think of it as an illustrative explanation, not a straw man - it certainly wasn't intended to be one (and it isn't, if you only read it as an example that's trying to clear up a point).
Look, I get your point I really do. There might be something I'm missing, neither of us is omniscient, maybe Jordan just happens to have intuitively grasped some minor detail and then subconsciously processed it to come to a conclusion that just looks like he's a blatant misogynist, but in the end he did have a crushingly greater chance of guessing the correct outcome. Maybe there was a metaphorical parasite in the meat that none of us could have spotted, but years and years of Jordan dealing with "crazy bitches" just made him amazing at spotting them without really knowing how he does it.
Sounds far-fetched? Because it is. And I'm not buying it for one second. Go ahead and call it arrogance, call it hubris, but I don't really care. If you think that there's some phenomenon outside of my perception that I could have missed, bring it up. Otherwise, I don't have much reason to listen to your objection. The tricky thing about your objection is, that you could apply it to any argument really. If your point is that I should be more humble... then that's fair enough. I could use some humility, sometimes. But trust me, in some cases it really isn't warranted. Certainly not in this case.
We all know that Jordan is a bit of an idiot, and it's no coincidence that he met so many "crazy bitches" before. It's been him along. Cue the argument 7 months ago.
Oh, and I'm aware that the rain gods are a "straw man". I used such a strong example to get the point about the relatedness of conclusion and methodology across as clearly as possible. Jordans case isn't nearly as extreme as the case of the rain gods, and I would never claim that it is. Think of it as an illustrative explanation, not a straw man - it certainly wasn't intended to be one (and it isn't, if you only read it as an example that's trying to clear up a point).
Let's be clear here, my example wasn't about tiny details that one might miss, but complete blindness of self-evident realities due to ideology and our inherently limited perspective of the world. It's the same reason why Russian prisoners in the Gulag can get arrested on a pretense and still go on praising the Stalin and the revolution. In the same way, you can't seem to accept any alternative outside of a one-in-a-million event other than that Jordan was an irrational misogynist, and it was only luck that he was right. Jordan was totally right from the get go, obviously WWW's girlfriend had mental issues and wasn't a suitable girlfriend. You go full numale and try to defend her but obviously Jordan had more insight into women with personalities like her than you. That is my conclusion.
Your problem is that you think you're a genius who can determine everything someone believes and how they arrived at their beliefs from a few forum posts. If anyone disagrees with you you will quickly create a contrived explanation of why they believe what they do, e.g. "he's a misogynist because he felt threatened by women growing up" or something, and then use that as a reason why you don't have to take any of their arguments seriously.
Your problem is that you think you're a genius who can determine everything someone believes and how they arrived at their beliefs from a few forum posts. If anyone disagrees with you you will quickly create a contrived explanation of why they believe what they do, e.g. "he's a misogynist because he felt threatened by women growing up" or something, and then use that as a reason why you don't have to take any of their arguments seriously.
What? You just pulled that out of your ass, I never wrote anything about why became the way it is, that would be presumptuous and there are way too many possible reasons anyway. You just made that up. Don't talk about me making ad hominems and then hit me with this crap one post later.B1rd wrote:
If anyone disagrees with you you will quickly create a contrived explanation of why they believe what they do, e.g. "he's a misogynist because he felt threatened by women growing up" or something, and then use that as a reason why you don't have to take any of their arguments seriously.
And you don't even see the irony of that statement. Thanks for this concise assessment, Dr. Freud.B1rd wrote:
Your problem is that you think you're a genius who can determine everything someone believes and how they arrived at their beliefs from a few forum posts.
Fuck me, this is a waste of time.
Now excuse me please, I'll have to go back to my gulag. Stalin wills it.
also can we maybe stop this? i know the thread is about things neither funny nor interesting, but we don't have to take it to ridiculous extremes.
Tanzklaue wrote:
also can we maybe stop this? i know the thread is about things neither funny nor interesting, but we don't have to take it to ridiculous extremes.
And as always, you get all huffy and tap out.Railey2 wrote:
What? You just pulled that out of your ass, I never wrote anything about why became the way it is, that would be presumptuous and there are way too many possible reasons anyway. You just made that up. Don't talk about me making ad hominems and then hit me with this crap one post later.B1rd wrote:
If anyone disagrees with you you will quickly create a contrived explanation of why they believe what they do, e.g. "he's a misogynist because he felt threatened by women growing up" or something, and then use that as a reason why you don't have to take any of their arguments seriously.And you don't even see the irony of that statement. Thanks for this concise assessment, Dr. Freud.B1rd wrote:
Your problem is that you think you're a genius who can determine everything someone believes and how they arrived at their beliefs from a few forum posts.
Fuck me, this is a waste of time.
Now excuse me please, I'll have to go back to my gulag. Stalin wills it.
You can't seem to accept any alternative outside of a one-in-a-million event other than that I am just huffy, and its only because I can't stand up to your supreme arguments that I'm tapping out. It's the same reason why Russian prisoners in the Gulag can get arrested on a pretense and still go on praising the Stalin and the revolution.B1rd wrote:
And as always, you get all huffy and tap out.
Your problem is that you think you're a genius who can determine the exact reason why someone would rather shoot themselves than continue talking to you, and how they arrived at this shocking conclusion from a few forum posts.
Does it please you to be a contrarian against self-evident logic? Do you fancy yourself a defender of Jordan against evil elitists with their intellectual arguments and reasoning?
or like continue arguing and feeding into each others pointless rage, i'm jsut gonna ask milkshake how her bambus is doing.
I'm not raging, I'm just taking the piss at this point
Railey is the only one raging. I was just engaging in dialogue. Some people obviously can't stand the heat so they need to get out of the kitchen.Tanzklaue wrote:
or like continue arguing and feeding into each others pointless rage, i'm jsut gonna ask milkshake how her bambus is doing.
You do realise you two have been doing nothing but hurling ad hominems at each other for the past 3 or 4 discussions? :V
At this point it doesn't matter who was right or wrong - you're just two bickering lovers. Kiss already.
At this point it doesn't matter who was right or wrong - you're just two bickering lovers. Kiss already.
as a certified internet priest i hereby declare you husband and wife.
railey, you may kiss your sworn partner for life now.
railey, you may kiss your sworn partner for life now.
What will Maho say about this when he comes back, I wonder...
LMAOOOOOO i just read the last 3-4 pages of this thread
Endaris wrote:
What will Maho say about this when he comes back, I wonder...
tbh i miss him on here, he was generally cool
when u wanna read all but yu dont give a flying **** to go to the latest ones
B1rd wrote:
Railey2 wrote:
What? You just pulled that out of your ass, I never wrote anything about why became the way it is, that would be presumptuous and there are way too many possible reasons anyway. You just made that up. Don't talk about me making ad hominems and then hit me with this crap one post later.B1rd wrote:
If anyone disagrees with you you will quickly create a contrived explanation of why they believe what they do, e.g. "he's a misogynist because he felt threatened by women growing up" or something, and then use that as a reason why you don't have to take any of their arguments seriously.
And you don't even see the irony of that statement. Thanks for this concise assessment, Dr. Freud.B1rd wrote:
Your problem is that you think you're a genius who can determine everything someone believes and how they arrived at their beliefs from a few forum posts.
Fuck me, this is a waste of time.
Now excuse me please, I'll have to go back to my gulag. Stalin wills it.
And as always, you get all huffy and tap out.
Is that really a bad thing though?
don't worry, things haven't changed here one single bit
it's still as terrible as ever
it's still as terrible as ever
3 months ago was differentRaspberriel wrote:
don't worry, things haven't changed here one single bit
it's still as terrible as ever
this thread, I meanabraker wrote:
3 months ago was differentRaspberriel wrote:
don't worry, things haven't changed here one single bit
it's still as terrible as ever
It is when you have what amounts to a tantrum.Brisk Clarity wrote:
Is that really a bad thing though?