The Art of the Argument

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File	Select/drop/paste files here
* = required field	[▶ Show post options & limits] Confused? See the FAQ.

File: ff6877fe68f24b3⋯.jpg (35.93 KB, 593x494, 593:494, ff6877fe68f24b39e01f4d371c….jpg)

The Art of the Argument Anonymous 09/03/17 (Sun) 08:50:37 No.66304

What did Stefan mean by this?

Anonymous 09/03/17 (Sun) 09:04:17 No.66306

Meh. That's a weak argument by him. I have never heard anyone claim that all kind people must also be socialists. I did hear people equate kindness with socialism, however, but that's a subtle but meaningful difference. It means that kindness itself is socialism, not that if you're kind, you must also be a socialist.

The worst instance was in David Graebers Debt, where he pretty much called any nonreciprocal act of kindness communism. Suddenly, if you show a stranger the way, don't cough at people in the train, and smile at little children, you're a communist. The idiots that say Jesus was a socialist because he cared for the poor follow Graebers logic, they just don't take it as far as he does.

Anonymous 09/03/17 (Sun) 09:35:35 No.66307

>>66306

Mate, ignore the content, the form is faulty. The first example is:

1. A has property P.

2. B has property P.

3. Therefore B is A.

(logically unsound)

While the other is:

1. A has property P.

2. B is A.

3. Therefore B has property P.

(logically sound)

Anonymous 09/03/17 (Sun) 09:54:55 No.66310

>>66307

Christ. You're right. I didn't look at how logical his syllogism was, but now that you say it, just… what. Then why the fuck even present your argument in this way, if you can't do a proper damn syllogism?!

Anonymous 09/03/17 (Sun) 10:17:56 No.66313

What happens when someone with a history degree plays the philosopher.

Anonymous 09/03/17 (Sun) 10:53:54 No.66315

>>66313

>b-but he's a successful enterpreneur…

Anonymous 09/03/17 (Sun) 21:36:46 No.66400

File: 29c19dceac5e03e⋯.jpg (253.39 KB, 1276x1456, 319:364, ee7478a89b97896e105ef0d7b3….jpg)

>>66313

He's the most important philosopher of the 21st century. The argument is love, the argument is life.

Anonymous 09/04/17 (Mon) 00:25:28 No.66421

>>66307

I don't see the difference.

Oh well

Anonymous 09/04/17 (Mon) 02:26:53 No.66423

>>66313

>What happens when someone with a history degree plays the philosopher.

I thought he did have a philosophy degree and not a history degree?

Anonymous 09/04/17 (Mon) 07:57:28 No.66438

>>66421

Are you retarded? Honest question.

Anonymous 09/04/17 (Mon) 10:06:49 No.66446

File: ec4614b5e40dd59⋯.pdf (678.82 KB, Stefan_Molyneux_-_The_Art_….pdf)

A masterpiece.

Anonymous 09/04/17 (Mon) 17:00:25 No.66472

>>66438

Why are "Plumber" and "Kind" different here? Actually nevermind, why is kindness not a property and plumber not, well, valid for the form "B is A"? If anything that makes more sense.

Plumbers have to know plumbing, therefore they always must "Know how to X"(Fix piping, whatever)

Kind people can be "kind" for multiple reasons

Anonymous 09/04/17 (Mon) 17:53:05 No.66481

File: 57a9a8cae433583⋯.png (34.28 KB, 400x236, 100:59, 57a9a8cae4335833582aed07da….png)

>>66472

They are not different, anon… You could rewrite it like this:

1. For all X people, if plumber(X) then canswim(X).

2. For all X people, if bob(X) then canswim(X).

3. Therefore: For all X people, if bob(X) then plumber(X).

1. For all X people, if kind(X) then socialist(X).

2. For all X people, if bob(X) then kind(X).

3. Therefore: For all X people, if bob(X) then socialist(X).

If we replace them with single letters:

1. For all X people, if a(X) then c(X).

2. For all X people, if b(X) then c(X).

3. Therefore: For all X people, if b(X) then a(X).

1. For all X people, if a(X) then c(X).

2. For all X people, if b(X) then a(X).

3. Therefore: For all X people, if b(X) then c(X).

Do you want me to do proofs for them?

Anonymous 09/04/17 (Mon) 18:56:57 No.66494

>>66481

Well your post is completely out of line with >>66307 which implies the opposite: The "kind" and "plumber" arguments are in different forms. So I can only figure out that you're anon 1 and >>66307 is person 2, and person 1 has forgotten the context of the conversation person 3(me) is having with 2.

If your post actually connects with >>66307 's post in some form, I will leave this thread.

Anonymous 09/04/17 (Mon) 20:25:06 No.66511

File: 92b8f6facf88dd2⋯.jpg (49.57 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, 904843cb4c2745ef5287d2aa26….jpg)

>>66494

They are in different forms in both posts you fucking retard. Are you literally this stupid? Have you never taken a maths class?

In the plumber it's

1. a -> c

2. b -> c

3. b -> a

in the /kind/

1. a -> c

2. b -> a

3. b -> c

Do you honestly can't see what the difference is?!

If he used the form of the first example in the second example, it would have been:

1. Kind people are socialists.

2. Bob is a socialist.

3. Therefore, Bob is kind.

He probably wanted this, though:

1. Socialists are kind people.

2. Bob is kind.

3. Therefore, Bob is a socialist.

Anonymous 09/04/17 (Mon) 20:51:51 No.66516

>>66494

>>66511

You're both retarded. The first proposition in the kind example wasn't qualified with "all." It's not that Molyneux contradicted himself, he just came up with a shitty analogy.

Anonymous 09/04/17 (Mon) 21:02:16 No.66521

>>66516

There's no "some" or "exists" either, so the "all" is implied. He's not contradicting himself, he just fucked up the example and presented correct reasoning as wrong.

Anonymous 09/04/17 (Mon) 21:05:45 No.66522

File: cd54fc5812d7eb7⋯.gif (592.88 KB, 500x279, 500:279, vgif-ru-25570.gif)