# Some analysis of bullshitting in arguments.

#### BurnedOut

##### Active Member
DISCLAIMER : This is an official guide to 'How To Be An Asshole. The key to survival in a world where you are rejected before being given a chance.'

PS:I like dark humour. If anyone starting from 18/4/18 till 0xFFFFFFF gets butthurt by my posts, I don't care.

I personally prefer using optimal amounts of facts and logical deductions to tear down arguments. Stats work great notwithstanding their actual validity. I have developed this habit of destroying someone's point of view significantly by using the 'courtroom' style of arguing. When facts and logic is presented clearly, which I always recommend for both debating, arguing and studying, things suddenly make quite easy to comprehend.
I'll recommend seasoned debaters and charmers to read thinking fast and slow to hone your skills even more. I'll list down some common bullshitting-tactics people/experts use :

1.I believe in most debates people end up worshipping their hubris, fall prey to using

**social validation to their pov and references to run down their opponent's argument**

Eg. " At least everyone agrees with me, what about you ? It's not even practical/appealing and hence it's bullshit per se"

This is clearly a 3-line bullshitter. Firstly, psychology plays a huge role in this phenomenon, analysing the context and questioning the people who have rife opinions about a leverage they have against you, you'll end realising that it's nothing or too illogical. How does people agreeing with your argument makes it stronger and from where does practicality spring up suddenly when the whole debate is itself **Hypothetical**?

2. The argument of practicality.
A proper point, or at least a logically sound one, requires some amount of thinking notwithstanding your intellect but directly correlated with your **nitpicking skills** and **conditioning-to-arguments**. By that I mean, the more seasoned you are with debates and spotting differences frequently, you will have an upper hand tearing down arguments. This is especially (acc. To me) true with coders, philosophers, mathematicians or any professional who has to deal with analytical things.

The argument of practicality arises as the third-last defence while defending your pov in vain. It says, #Assuming minimal efficiency, creativity, how well does your argument fare in terms of highly-conventional context ?# Obviously as you can see this is a predecessor to the another bullshitting-tactic of **oversimplification**. Eg.

Context : The person you are talking to has bought an expensive dress, is wearing it and getting compliments about it. The day before, you see one of her friends glimmering her newly bought grandilo-smartphone to everyone in her group. You bump into that girl, she snides at you for #crumpling her newly-bought 500000000000$dress and explicitly tells you about it and you get angry and an argument ensues. This will be from my pov, as a good debater : Me : Well, I saw your friend shining her 1mil smartphone. Quite a strange yet ubiquitous coincidence you seem so lovely today ! She : So what ? What the fuck do you mean ? You nearly ruined my neatly ironed dress and not even apologizing for it. Moreover you need to stop getting paranoid. Really. How does my buying of dress end up getting related to her cellphone ? Why do you think everything is connected ? Stupid fuck. Me : Errrrr...Weren't you busy yesterday, prepping for today's paper ? I suppose under *quoting with two fingers**statistically normal circumstances, a person is unlikely to go shopping***unquote*. Maybe, you should perhaps grab a bite of selfesteem. It works a lot. She : 'Ever heard of free will'? Are you suggesting that I became jealous of her ? Hell no, you are being hurtful right now. And no, I did study, I had to go shop for the party I am planning to attend. Me: *Sighs* *Snides* *Laughing inside* She : I knew you wouldn't say a thing. BECAUSE YOU DONT HAVE ANY ARGUMENTS. Your theories simply don't work in reality and they are crap. Me : *Finally Agitated* """Enter all the relevant args needed to explain my point **bluntly**""" Usually, I do pick on people for their typical-ass behaviour. Not because I feel jealous but because they keep on denying about truth, not politely, in a rather pompous way that is bound to get on my nerves. Moreover the above argument is an analogy that I face on quite a periodic basis during personal fights. As you can see, the female continues to : 1. Try to use the term 'free will' 2. Overpopulate the argument with 'feel' words 3. Deliberately act ignorant 4. Be histrionic Believe me or not, bystanders often end up supporting the histrionic person once the person plays the card of 'free will' and 'you-are-paranoid' Easiest way to crush these arguments : 1. Use logic and target the histrionic behaviour. If you are well versed with body-language and microexpressions, that's better but you may seem weird while employing these tactics ( for socially conscious INTPs) 2. Use logic and throw psychology. Use the faculty of theorising, speculation and hindsight 20/20 tactic to bring down the argument 3. The moralistic argumentative bullshitter: These ones are the biggest pain in the ass, both during tete-a-tete and socially-populated-situated-arguments. This is most commonly used by bullshiters to support their fallible arguments, most commonly to justify an action which dominates someone and religious debates and while protecting their admired socialite. The most commonly used used words here is 'feelings', 'but', 'understand','intention', 'care', 'purpose'. Once these words start popping up too frequently when the person is exhausted of logic, be prepared, you are up against a histrionist again. Understanding these people : It's a common thing for us to resort to emotions on the brink of losing a debate after it hits our self esteem. However this situation should and commonly ensues in situations where no logical reasoning/facts are required in huge quantities ie an emotionally charged fight with two closely-related people. However, people employ this tactic quite early in an argument. Their intention is to emotionally-influence you and the people around you (who are used as leverage) to dissuade you from debating any further by questioning the **practicality²** of your debate. I face these arguments mostly from females when caught deceiving in a situation and from popular (aspirant too) people while arguing who are prone to have a : 1.good reputation of seeming: 1. Naive 2. Empathetic 3. Friendly/Gregarious 4. Influential 5. Intelligent/Wise/gets awesome grades . Eg. Context : You are debating about a politician who has done nothing significant but adverting his campaigns about achievements like he has eradicated poverty from the world. Me : I've read up on this guy, he's mostly a bullshitter. This new law of **allowing immigrants to assume citizenship after getting employed for 1/4th the usual wage** is crap. As far as I know, this is not good for the employment rate of the country and can potentially lead to violent clashes/ a vote of no-confidence being passed against the government. Who wants anarchy for simply cutting-corners to avoid spending too much on wage distribution ? Not to mention widespread exploitation. He : Are you kidding me ? He has also **promised** to provide with advanced-vocational training institutes for any citizen who were born in the country. A reservation rate is also being discussed for these locals along with subsidising higher education fees. Me : Do you see any particular gestalt benefit ? I think they should scrap the whole thing. It's crap anyway. This is a pain in the ass for the economy He : isn't it a common thing to get hated for doing something good ? This guy is helping everyone, the downtrodden illegal immigrants and the locals as well. Me : Economically speaking...* You stop realising it's futile* He : you are simply being paranoid. Maybe you should let things take the course and scrap the logic. This guy is a god-send, the past doesn't really matter now. Guys like you are responsible for underdevelopment of the country and eradication of all the good people in the world. Who not join ISIS ? Me: Good, I'll kill you first with that Kalishnikov. I'm busy currently, will update this later Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk Last edited: #### Animekitty ##### I am all of my perception (Sally 666) 1. An arrogant attitude against a person with a neutral position leading to dismissiveness or a passive aggressiveness because they see the other person is inferior as there egocentric superiority inflates. 2. Or the simple fact that as you said the simplifaction of a contextual line of reasoning cannot be defended because any new points brought to for will simply repeat the cycle of one-liners which do not enhance understanding of context but erodes away the message by concluding what you said is meaningless so can be dismissed with one-liners. 1. Believes in there superiorly thus views anyone with different premises as inferior. 2. Believes what you say is meaningless and simplifies your conceptual framework as illogical. #### BurnedOut ##### Active Member 1. An arrogant attitude against a person with a neutral position leading to dismissiveness or a passive aggressiveness because they see the other person is inferior as there egocentric superiority inflates. 2. Or the simple fact that as you said the simplifaction of a contextual line of reasoning cannot be defended because any new points brought to for will simply repeat the cycle of one-liners which do not enhance understanding of context but erodes away the message by concluding what you said is meaningless so can be dismissed with one-liners. 1. Believes in there superiorly thus views anyone with different premises as inferior. 2. Believes what you say is meaningless and simplifies your conceptual framework as illogical. This is not meant for personal arguments, the top priority of this theory is to highlight the conditions in which people taint the whole point of arguing by bullshitting when it's not required. There's no point of social context here even if it's highly intertwined. As I've mentioned already, people to push their social dicks into everything. The debate is for a particular topic and due to constant bullshiting the whole point of arguing is destroyed because the main point is ignored, the debate goes astray and turns into a street fight. Clarity : Satirical thesis Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk #### Animekitty ##### I am all of my perception (Sally 666) intentional sabotage #### Animekitty ##### I am all of my perception (Sally 666) One time at Wal-mart me my mom my sister and our friend Cathy were at customer service and the news was mentioning trump. This was spring 2016. - I said if Trump is elected then the Democrats will need to push back hard because he will be a tuff president. Cathy said is a ruffled up way, "Oh, so you support trump". I said no, but the Democrats need a plan B or they will just get yanked around. And as I predicted the Democrats are pushing back hard. I think this is good because it gets people more involved. I do believe this country needed a catalyst because of all the social media now in place. Cathy still dislikes trump, I will not talk to anyone that get so irritated again. She is completely controlled by her emotions. #### Animekitty ##### I am all of my perception (Sally 666) The girl dress thing. (This is not an attack on you but one interpretation of your account) You saw your friend had a new cell phone, you bump into the girl with the expensive dress. You try to say the reason you accidentally bumped into her was to see the cellphone. She did not understand what you meant and were randomly talking about the cellphone for no reason and maybe it was to deflect from the fact she did not want he dress ruined. You say statistically people do not go shopping for such dresses as hers. She inserts that statistics is bullshit when it comes to the agency of individual choices to buy dresses because "Free will". She chose to get the dress rather than do the paper, thus "AGENCY". She has not connected the cellphone to her almost ruined dress. You became silent and she puts forth the fact you had no argument on why you almost ruined her dress. This is not to upset you but to try and see her perspective. #### BurnedOut ##### Active Member The girl dress thing. (This is not an attack on you but one interpretation of your account) You saw your friend had a new cell phone, you bump into the girl with the expensive dress. You try to say the reason you accidentally bumped into her was to see the cellphone. She did not understand what you meant and were randomly talking about the cellphone for no reason and maybe it was to deflect from the fact she did not want he dress ruined. You say statistically people do not go shopping for such dresses as hers. She inserts that statistics is bullshit when it comes to the agency of individual choices to buy dresses because "Free will". She chose to get the dress rather than do the paper, thus "AGENCY". She has not connected the cellphone to her almost ruined dress. You became silent and she puts forth the fact you had no argument on why you almost ruined her dress. This is not to upset you but to try and see her perspective. No no no, you should read the context too, that's why I <EM>inserted the context variable</EM> The statistics thing was a <B>gross tongue in cheek remark</B> The incident was, she got aroused, bought a new dress as <EM> a rebuttal and then denied the truth</EM> Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk #### Animekitty ##### I am all of my perception (Sally 666) So the girl only said you broke her cell phone as a way to annoy you, it was not broken by you. The girl in the dress only said you ruined her dress but you did not, again to annoy you. Please let me be clear but the flow from my reading does not fit together in my understanding of what you said. To me, it just seems like both are lying to annoy you. (is this the bullshiting?) (2. The argument of practicality.) I know this is part and parcel that she kept making shit up to win the argument. But the dress and cellphone I have uncertainty if they were both ruined (I still need clarity on this?) "I have poor comprehension" - not intentional #### BurnedOut ##### Active Member Read it again, 1. Her friend buys a cellphone 2. The girl in retaliation buys an expensive dress 3. You accidentally bump into that girl and she reacts like a bitch 4. the argument ensues when you mock her for being jealous yet lying about it, be snarky and go off because you think it's essentially futile to argue with her Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk #### Animekitty ##### I am all of my perception (Sally 666) Read it again, 1. Her friend buys a cellphone 2. The girl in retaliation buys an expensive dress 3. You accidentally bump into that girl and she reacts like a bitch 4. the argument ensues when you mock her for being jealous yet lying about it, be snarky and go off because you think it's essentially futile to argue with her You told her to get some self-esteem but since you were angry at her bitchiness you did not mean it. If she really is insecure as a person (buying a dress because her friend bought a new cellphone) then the reaction is not unexplainable. She may or may not be a shallow person but she has a shallow life. And she is not that good at logic or reasoning. With all the random stuff she said she was venting her frustrations on you just because you bumped her in the state she was in that the most important thing to her is the dress. It had nothing to do personal against you, you were a random occurrence in her life. Anyone would get vented upon. Simply the dress was important to her. She has low self-esteem. Jealousy is an insecurity. Reveling or confronting their insecurities makes them feel vulnerable. So they try and hide it and deflect it. The dress is just a way to be accepted. Without acceptance, lonelyness happens. High School girls want to be accepted. Even if she is jealous it is because the popularity contests in schools make it so you must be the coolest to win. Deep Down she does not want to be rejected. #### Hadoblado ##### think again losers BurnedOut I would find this obnoxious af. You might be right. But it's not like you've proven anything. Just because you can produce a narrative that fits, doesn't mean that that's what happened. You sound like you're being an asshole. Why is it any of your business why someone bought a dress? I mean, sure, notice it, maybe consider why they're acting the way they are. But you don't know, and being all aggressive about it serves no noble purpose. And honestly, no disrespect intended, but you're yet to establish your ability as an A+ debater. Not because you're stupid or anything (you're not), it just doesn't seem to me like communication is your strength. #### The Gopher ##### President You might be right. But it's not like you've proven anything. Just because you can produce a narrative that fits, doesn't mean that that's what happened. ---- And honestly, no disrespect intended, but you're yet to establish your ability as an A+ debater. Not because you're stupid or anything (you're not), it just doesn't seem to me like communication is your strength. https://i.imgur.com/xgz9nkR.gif Edit:Man it's a shame so much functionality is broken. Hado is right though, on both counts. At least that's what my narrative is telling me. #### BurnedOut ##### Active Member BurnedOut I would find this obnoxious af. You might be right. But it's not like you've proven anything. Just because you can produce a narrative that fits, doesn't mean that that's what happened. You sound like you're being an asshole. Why is it any of your business why someone bought a dress? I mean, sure, notice it, maybe consider why they're acting the way they are. But you don't know, and being all aggressive about it serves no noble purpose. And honestly, no disrespect intended, but you're yet to establish your ability as an A+ debater. Not because you're stupid or anything (you're not), it just doesn't seem to me like communication is your strength. Touche but not touche. The example was not well formed and I didn't elaborate enough, that's my fault. Actually if you see, it's not obnoxious at all, if you carefully read everything, I've laced everything with tons of sarcasm already. I don't know why you guys are finding it hard to comprehend the girl getting pissed or acting like a bitch thing really hahahahaha but anyway. The whole point of including that example was to show vanity at its purest. Yeah, surely I do sound like a big asshole and I don't mind being called one in such situations but perhaps you haven't faced pubescent histrionic behaviour which will definitely blow your brains right at the moment it begins. The example is closely related to one incident that I've faced millions of times until now. This time, I'll mention an actual incident : Me : Yeah, I had a hard time using a metaphorical hammer and a chisel to carve out my life's cornerstone with accuracy. ( I pronounced chisel as ch<em>ee</em>sel) Her : it's ch<em>i</em>sel not cheesel. <b>emphasis on the empathic period at the end of the line</b> Me : as long as it sounds harmonious and euphonic, does it really matter, the pronounciations ? Her : It simply shows that you used to belong to a cheap-graded school Me : Nice, I want to laugh at your closed mindedness for not considering the fact that these words are simply a serious of sound waves and pronounciations which simply form a pseudopattern due to constant exposure to them. Moreover there is no definitive framework that dogmatically dictates grammar rules and pronounciations. So much for your intellect and your 'high-end schooling' My point was people pick fights for no reason and sound boisterous unnecessarily to seem cool to everyone when they don't realise how bullshit it is Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk #### BurnedOut ##### Active Member You told her to get some self-esteem but since you were angry at her bitchiness you did not mean it. If she really is insecure as a person (buying a dress because her friend bought a new cellphone) then the reaction is not unexplainable. She may or may not be a shallow person but she has a shallow life. And she is not that good at logic or reasoning. With all the random stuff she said she was venting her frustrations on you just because you bumped her in the state she was in that the most important thing to her is the dress. It had nothing to do personal against you, you were a random occurrence in her life. Anyone would get vented upon. Simply the dress was important to her. She has low self-esteem. Jealousy is an insecurity. Reveling or confronting their insecurities makes them feel vulnerable. So they try and hide it and deflect it. The dress is just a way to be accepted. Without acceptance, lonelyness happens. High School girls want to be accepted. Even if she is jealous it is because the popularity contests in schools make it so you must be the coolest to win. Deep Down she does not want to be rejected. Okay, I will not mention again that I've specifically mentioned a context which narrows down the possibility of making other theories intended to justify the targeted person. Your theory veered off the path too far, the simple implication was <b> if phone then dress </b>. Now if you want to keep on making other explicit assumptions, you are free to do so but they don't intercept the actual point. Even if I consider the <em>deep-down-innocence</em> thing, it cannot serve as a justification to simply act like a dickhead and then justify it by the means of half-baked psychological explanation. Everyone is endowed with the power to gratification-delay which can or cannot be exercised at will, it can enhanced and decreased too. Now, it's a choice a person has to consciously make. Once the person makes the <b>choice consciously</b> he cannot retrospectively regard his choice as a victim of apparent unfortunate circumstances, especially in such situations. You guys are simply missing the point here and being persnickety about the irrelevant girl. The point that people constantly posit their <b>intuition</b> about some things and apply bias leverage and try to prove the other party paranoid is very common and hence cannot be denied at any level. This happens especially when someone has a tendency to explain everything logically eg. Me and use discordant words changes the whole perception about me and my personality. Fyi, interesting enough, there is a whole field dedicated to usage of language and cognition. It's linguistic psychology, quite interesting Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk #### BurnedOut ##### Active Member Emphatic * as a correction to the last post Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk #### redbaron ##### irony based lifeform Actually if you see, it's not obnoxious at all, if you carefully read everything, I've laced everything with tons of sarcasm already. That's what makes it so obnoxious. The logical thing to do after you bump into someone is to apologise, not be sarcastic towards them. #### Animekitty ##### I am all of my perception (Sally 666) You guys are simply missing the point here and being persnickety about the irrelevant girl. The point that people constantly posit their <b>intuition</b> about some things and apply bias leverage and try to prove the other party paranoid is very common and hence cannot be denied at any level. This happens especially when someone has a tendency to explain everything logically eg. Me and use discordant words changes the whole perception about me and my personality. Fyi, interesting enough, there is a whole field dedicated to usage of language and cognition. It's linguistic psychology, quite interesting Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk I see now. The concern then is 1. people end up worshipping their hubris (argument by popularity) 2. The argument of practicality. (nitpicking) 3. The moralistic argumentative bullshitter (claims moral, ignores facts) All three can be turned around and put the blame on you instead of the logic behind what you see as the conclusions derived from the factual premises. Because they cannot follow your arguments you become the target. My brother has rage issues, if I am not careful he will punch me in the face. When making an argument I need to be careful and know when to stop. If I am angry I do not emphasize he is wrong or that my point is right from context. I let him say anything no matter how incorrect and add to what he said little by little. One time I said 24 karat gold in 99.9% gold and he said proofs are not gold but plated with 1% gold. I told him that was stupid because if you buy an ounce of 24 karat gold it is worth one ounce of god. He told me I was an asshole because proofs are not pure gold. I told him he was an asshole because I said a pure gold coin, not his retarded proof coin. Then the fight began. He could not understand that a 24 karat gold coin is not a proof. It is a pure one ounce of gold. I am not as logical as you. My brain does not structure thought in blocks. So it may be annoying when I respond because I cannot Go from premise to conclusion. The order of my responses is conducent to a back and forth dialog to understand the underlying conditions that make up what happened to lead up to a post. Your logic by itself is hard to follow so I had to work around some of your implicit assumption you may have thought obvious to the reader when they were not. You pointed to the context paragraph that told me nothing about the girl buying a dress because her friend bought a cellphone, you were not explicit on this till later. That does not matter anymore but it was still something that was missing in the logic. What matters now is the way you are treated because you are such a logical person. One thing about being a logical person is that sometimes you make mistakes in logic or leave out steps in your logic. A logical person has trouble dealing with emotional people and nonlogical people because they do not follow the premises and conclusions. Logical people, since there cognition is structured will have the mental capacity to order their thoughts and this gives then a high intelligence. You made this thread to show the ways people have treated you for being highly logical. You made 3 categories of bullshitting. Because you posted your insights in this form you were expecting feedback. Since I responded then I was trying to give feedback. It was not that good because I know you expected something more close to the logic you have. I hope you get fedback closer to what you were expecting. #### BurnedOut ##### Active Member I see now. The concern then is 1. people end up worshipping their hubris (argument by popularity) 2. The argument of practicality. (nitpicking) 3. The moralistic argumentative bullshitter (claims moral, ignores facts) All three can be turned around and put the blame on you instead of the logic behind what you see as the conclusions derived from the factual premises. Because they cannot follow your arguments you become the target. Fair enough, I admit this. One thing about being a logical person is that sometimes you make mistakes in logic or leave out steps in your logic. A logical person has trouble dealing with emotional people and nonlogical people because they do not follow the premises and conclusions. Logical people, since there cognition is structured will have the mental capacity to order their thoughts and this gives then a high intelligence. I did some research on the relationship between emotions and iq, a pop study on vietnam veterans concluded that g and EQ share some major facets which implies that g is correlated with EQ itself, a positive correlation per se <a href=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/emotional-smarts-tied-to/> GI is correlated with EQ</a> One dubious thing about this study is the sample is horrendously small to make a definite conclusion about the correlation ie only 150. Now, there is one more contradiction to this whole thing - Agreeableness has no correlation with g. Huh ? But the previous claim asserts there is, a very significant one indeed. Now, another psychologytoday articles claims that smartasses condone assholic behaviour a little more than their counterparts like lying, arrogance, etc. But however people who have worked with gifted kids say that gifted kids are very sensitive, usually have low self esteem due to constant isolation < typical high IQ bullshit personality claims > Latest brain scans show the volume of grey matter matters less than the <em><b>level of interconnections in the brain</b></em>. If I supposedly assume myself to be more logical, in conventional terms, more less emotional then that doesn't make sense because I myself know how sensitive I'm to experiencing emotions full-fledgedly, so much that I end up getting called a <b>girl</b> many a times by people who observe this trait of mine. I can only come to a conclusion that perhaps 'perhaps' intellect is not correlated with using emotions at any spectrum. Many of the smart-asses I've met are pure dickheads in their behaviour, openly arrogant and following the societial norms dogmatically. However some of the smart-asses I've met are shy, have low self-esteem and are empathic but then all of them do feel intellectual superior from time to time out of frustration. If I take myself as an example, I'm more vulnerable to feeling more emotions than an average person that when I start feeling them, people experience this emotionally-induced logical invective which often gives off the wrong impression of arrogance. Not trying to assert anything about myself but clearing the fact that normal people and smart people and dumb people can exercise their emotions at will when it comes to choosing their preferred mode of cognition however it's the <b>culture</b> that dictates what behaviour should be presented and what behaviour should not be. Sure, we can all go against the culture and we are constantly in the process to make a new one. However most people prefer to do it in groups while some people go alone. Groups become collectivists and loners become individualists. The most paradoxical thing is, collectivists often claim of being staunch individualist and regard themselves as <em> standing </em> out from the crowd. However, they are all similar. Abnormality is predominantly defined by statistical rarity. You made this thread to show the ways people have treated you for being highly logical. You made 3 categories of bullshitting. Because you posted your insights in this form you were expecting feedback. Since I responded then I was trying to give feedback. It was not that good because I know you expected something more close to the logic you have. I hope you get fedback closer to what you were expecting. Before I made this post, my mom has shouting at me a few minutes ago for condoning atheism and making inferences about anything, according to her, there is god's great plan and other things and blah blah. Then she misinterpreted my pov and rejected every explanation I tried to present to her to justify my argument regardless of their validity. It quickly turned ugly and I was being mocked for not being able to earn money and hence I should keep my mouth shut and snap back into reality (how can I even earn money well at this age without proper education ?). One incident enough is liable to be labelled as an isolated one. However when I start noticing the same behaviour in bulk amounts, I can emphatically say that this is surely an observation, not a pseudopattern. I'll do some further research on my own theory to see how consistent it is. Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk #### Animekitty ##### I am all of my perception (Sally 666) Emotional intelligence has two components. 1. control of emotions by self-observation. 2. detecting emotional control in others. 1. falls into perception. 2. falls into judgment. The negative side. A person can be aware of their arrogance and increase it. A person can see a person is emotional and take advantage of them. The positive side. A person can be aware of negative emotions and let go of them expanding awareness. Detect the degree to which others have emotional control and try to increase it in them. Intelligence, in general, is about manipulating a number of variables to achieve an outcome. Theoretical a high intelligence person can keep track of multiple emotional states in themselves and others. Sorry about your mom yelling at you. I never met God myself but have met spiritual entities, sometimes in my dreams. #### BurnedOut ##### Active Member UPDATE#1 4. Whiff and Abscond - Debator : These types are arguably the most egregrious type of debators that I come across while fighting with people.$Argumenting style : Generally adopted by people seemingly ensconced with self esteem and a pseudoneutral attitude. (emphasis on pseudoneutral. You will soon realise why i monikered it as pseudo).

$Situation: Usually found lurking in groups or in large social circles. These people are apparently perceived as 'no-nonsense' and 'mature' and 'wise' so keep a watch for personal attacks which can be delivered by cattles (members with a herding tendencies) which can possibly demotivate you in a significant way. These 'mature' fucks love to be the assholebudsman instead of the ombudsman and polarise the fight instead of resolving it.$Arguing Style : Since these guys are perceived as 'mature' by most members in the group, you're highly likely to perceive them in a similar way until....you pick a fight which violates their beliefs. They never like to pick fights tete a tete - classical personages with their assemblages.
1. They will strike you silently. First in the background by sniding gently. It cuts, good enough to pick your attention.
2. As soon as you try to pick them out, they spit more mordant judgements. The amount of sarcasm contained in their comments is inversely proportional to the amount of sense they make.
3. Their attacks are very laconic and terse and their english sounds hypermodernised, like, usage of L33t and L0L (it's not an 'O') and rofl and and F0k (instead of fuck). Combined with a terse line, they can quickly engender a gauntlet of sarcasm and quasicool words
4. However, if the argument flares up and they receive a burn-blister, they will quickly resort to 'Shite m8, you are a cunt who can't take stuff like a sport' or 'I'm out of this bullshit' or 'Lol, Goodnigh(t). Keep on arguing like a dick'. These people also have a tendency to abuse periods as and when required to simonize their apparently fluent english and most likely be perceived as grammar nazis.
5. I cannot keep expositioning on this, so I'll post an example too.

example :

#### BurnedOut

##### Active Member
[23/03, 23:19] Victim: Thank your mouse
[23/03, 23:20] Illustrated_Attacker: Lmfao no.
[23/03, 23:21] Illustrated_Attacker: First of all, your mouse doesn't actually affect your response time.
[23/03, 23:21] Illustrated_Attacker: Also, I did the test on my phone.
[23/03, 23:21] Illustrated_Attacker: Not on my computer.
[23/03, 23:21] Illustrated_Attacker: Also, I hit that number accidentally.
[23/03, 23:21] Illustrated_Attacker: The fastest I have ever score is 120-140.
[23/03, 23:21] Illustrated_Attacker: Professional players have theirs in the 110 range.
[23/03, 23:23] Victim: You think so?
[23/03, 23:23] Victim: That's cool
[23/03, 23:24] Victim: Mine is above 300 ms lol
[23/03, 23:27] Illustrated_Attacker: It doesn't. I can tell you what does though.
[23/03, 23:27] Illustrated_Attacker: Scored.
[23/03, 23:32] Victim: No point in arguing if assertments are placed instead of opinions
[23/03, 23:32] Victim: Anyway
[23/03, 23:32] Victim: You should mental processing speed and working memory
[23/03, 23:32] Victim: Try the digit span test
[23/03, 23:33] Illustrated_Attacker: No, I'm serious lol. A gaming mice just has a fancier sensor that actually registers movements in a mouse. They don't make the "clicking" go any faster.
[23/03, 23:34] Illustrated_Attacker: Let's do this in person.
[23/03, 23:34] Illustrated_Attacker: The human benchmark thing.
[23/03, 23:34] Victim: You think it's correlated with IQ?
[23/03, 23:34] Victim: A guy thought that in the 1890s
[23/03, 23:34] Victim: He sucked
[23/03, 23:34] Illustrated_Attacker: Also a gaming mouse is a really generalized term.
[23/03, 23:35] Illustrated_Attacker: I don't agree with IQs anyway, so there's that.
[23/03, 23:39] Victim: I agree with empirical facts. Not predilections.
[23/03, 23:40] Illustrated_Attacker: This is in response to which of my sentence? Bc without context that basically means nothing even if you use Thesaurus porn.
[23/03, 23:41] Victim: Nope. It shows you are incapable of educing
[23/03, 23:42] Victim: And use that apparent pseudoflaw to launch harangues filled with subjectivity
[23/03, 23:42] Illustrated_Attacker: If you are talking about my statement regarding IQ, I actually meant that they don't depict the entire picture, it is basically trying to measure a 3D object on a 2D scale.
[23/03, 23:42] Victim: I said that because you haven't researched at all on IQ. Reading a page or two and then getting a low score created a bias in you and now you are touting that it's crap
[23/03, 23:43] Victim: And my reply was a sardonic one
[23/03, 23:43] Victim: But sadly you decided to seem supercilious. Didn't work. Nice try though
[23/03, 23:44] Illustrated_Attacker: Lmfao, get off your high horse, you didn't even actually try to understand where I was coming from but immediately jumped on the defensive bc your opinions were in question regarding the reputation of IQ tests. Just like they were with the personality tests.
[23/03, 23:44] Victim: Lack of causal words in your harangue
[23/03, 23:44] Victim: Scared of explaining?
[23/03, 23:45] Victim: So this is how you win fights
[23/03, 23:45] Victim: Insinuate them and then jump on the moral pedestal
[23/03, 23:45] Illustrated_Attacker: Again, using a Thesaurus doesn't make your argument more valid than mine, in regards of what I actually said, I was actually having a rational conversation with you which you turned on its head to try and "win an argument"
[23/03, 23:46] Victim: First learn to connect the dots and then launch your insultations .
[23/03, 23:47] Illustrated_Attacker: I didn't even insult you lmfao.
[23/03, 23:47] Victim: Skipped the previous comment, selective interpretation huh?
[23/03, 23:47] Illustrated_Attacker: But if you felt that my messages were insulting.
[23/03, 23:47] Illustrated_Attacker: Then that's your problem.
[23/03, 23:47] Victim: Noice, now it comes down to my personality
[23/03, 23:47] Victim: Anything more
[23/03, 23:47] Illustrated_Attacker: Look up the word "insult".
[23/03, 23:47] Victim: The one before that
[23/03, 23:47] Illustrated_Attacker: I didn't actually insult you.
[23/03, 23:47] Victim: Nice way to dodge a fight
[23/03, 23:47] Illustrated_Attacker: It's what you thought that did.
[23/03, 23:48] Victim: You have no shit info on IQ, make a comment, misconstrue implications and then fight from a moral standing
[23/03, 23:48] Victim: Nice work
[23/03, 23:48] Illustrated_Attacker: At this point I'm not even fighting you, I'm actually amused the way you get defensive over what you believe in.
[23/03, 23:48] Victim: This is too basic for my taste
[23/03, 23:48] Illustrated_Attacker: Like I said, the human mind plays in wonderful ways that the person in question is not even aware of.
[23/03, 23:48] Victim: Uh huh
[23/03, 23:49] Victim: That was really a shitty sarcastic line
[23/03, 23:49] Victim: Dude, this works on the internet
[23/03, 23:49] Victim: Not on me
[23/03, 23:49] Victim: Try it on reddit or YouTube
[23/03, 23:49] Victim: They'll suck your dicks vociferously
[23/03, 23:49] Illustrated_Attacker: Ah yes ofc.
[23/03, 23:50] Illustrated_Attacker: This is going on Reddit, so yeah, there's that.
[23/03, 23:50] Victim: Now adding periods after line and using terse rebuttals to show *ignorance* punctuated by a smirk
[23/03, 23:50] Victim: Good job
[23/03, 23:50] Victim: I'm on reddit too
[23/03, 23:50] Victim: Let's continue the pissing contest
[23/03, 23:50] Illustrated_Attacker: You really are a nut job.
[23/03, 23:50] Victim: Thanks for the street fight insinuation
[23/03, 23:50] Illustrated_Attacker: You are the one pissing here, not me.
[23/03, 23:50] Victim: You really are a kid Sid
[23/03, 23:51] Victim: Grow and fight like a ma.
[23/03, 23:51] Victim: Man *
[23/03, 23:51] Illustrated_Attacker: You took the conversation to a whole new level just bc I said something you didn't agree with.
[23/03, 23:51] Illustrated_Attacker: That's a sexist remark if I have ever seen one

Coup de gras :
1. You make a claim about iq without any info
3. You feel insulted and smack another line
4. I do the same
5. Then you try to justify yourself by readjusting your already said opinion regarding iq that you weren't calling it crap, just flawed
6.then you accuse me of sitting on a high horse
7. Then your replies start getting more and more terse since you show condescension and ignorance thinking I'm stupid.
8. Then you misconstrue the meaning of pissing contest and then berate me more
9. Then you are unable to understand colloquialism and call my remark 'sexist'

Conclusion : Deliberate oversimplification of the incoming flux of information, selectively interpreting opinions which are favourable and using sarcasm to demean and pare the rest. Lack of casual words and excessive usage of terse lines and periods indicating closed off mindset and haughtiness. *Not to mention no logical explanations given to back up the claims but attacks on the opponents personality.*

Re: you suck at arguments.
Here : The Illustrated Attacker is known for the personality I've mentioned above. He has a tendency to downplay arguments and then sealing the coffin of the other debator's argument who eventually succumbs under the fussilade of moral bashings of the cattles. However when the victim took him one on one, he clearly got fucked right in the ass. The same attacker has a loudass personality who expresses his disdain at everything he doesn't like (which is not liked by his bandwagon too) in a denigrating way and then belittling the the other guy often by emotional attacks, scornful remarks, insulting body language and superciilious behaviour. The victim however being aware of the bullshittery in the attacker's arguments was able to make him abscond. The victim sounds overshadowing, I will not deny. But to intimidate the attacker and be on an equal footing, he had to sound terse too. But there is a minimal chance his argumenting is not strong or not logical enough to crush the opponent's argument in a 'debative' way.

The main reason why this asshole is named as 'whiff and abscond - debator' is because they effectively insinuate a fight and then flee with their moral unicorns.

I forgot to add this earlier.
DISCLAIMER : This is an official guide to - How to be an asshole, survive in a world where you are not accepted before being given a chance and How to derive sadistic pleasure.
I usually like dark humour. So do not take it too seriously. If you still do, I wouldn't mind.

#Will post soon enough

#### Rolling Cattle

##### Redshift
I'm having a hard time following this topic.

I think facts and evidence is what really matters. Also clarity and understanding. The feelings of superiority are meaningless. I mean, in regards to the superiority, It's short-term gratification. Just let 'em go.

#### Animekitty

##### I am all of my perception (Sally 666)
The part where he say's the victim defends his belief in IQ not because IQ has good evidence supporting but only because the victim wants to maintain the belief IQ is real to have something to believe in. And then refuses to prove the evidence is wrong. This is super mega trollish. It seems that the troll either know reality and is fucking with you or has gotten so good deflecting people arguments that they have created a separate reality from real reality. Either way, their way of thinking denies reality so they must verbally get good at fucking with people depending on their intelligence level. A person that can properly reason will actually try to understand another person reality view. The delusional troll will just be a bully and have no respect for truth. Anything is on the table to fuck with people especially reasoning that fails to acknowledge any of your claims call for logical validity. Rational debate is impossible with them.

#### BurnedOut

##### Active Member
The part where he say's the victim defends his belief in IQ not because IQ has good evidence supporting but only because the victim wants to maintain the belief IQ is real to have something to believe in. And then refuses to prove the evidence is wrong. This is super mega trollish. It seems that the troll either know reality and is fucking with you or has gotten so good deflecting people arguments that they have created a separate reality from real reality. Either way, their way of thinking denies reality so they must verbally get good at fucking with people depending on their intelligence level. A person that can properly reason will actually try to understand another person reality view. The delusional troll will just be a bully and have no respect for truth. Anything is on the table to fuck with people especially reasoning that fails to acknowledge any of your claims call for logical validity. Rational debate is impossible with them.
The victim has shittons of irrefutable evidence. It's his condescending tone which is making him sound wrong. In a rational fight, what evidence you put on the table decides the weight of the argument like in a court case. In this case, if you try to refute the evidence kept on the table, the argument will descend into oblivion. I would rather say that the victim got threatened intellectually and then positted a hostile argument. Just ignore the validity of IQ here, if you notice here, the victim went for the throat directly. I would rather say that the victim just smacked the attacker partially to avenge himself of the attacker's supercilious behaviour and partially to cut the attacker off before he gets started. The emphasis in the argument is on the attacker's bullshittery, not the validity of the evidence itself. The coupe de gras, sums up all the shortcomings in the attacker's argument.

I admit that understanding what is written might be a little difficult so I'll make it clear - it focusses on the bullshitting that takes place in arguments and debates which are originally meant to be logical and rational but turn quickly into a street fight due to the bullshitting that ensues. Like in the above example.

Call me an asshole, I usually get a high from arguing. I pour oil to the fire when there is an irrational debate and keep changing sides just for fun's sake. People get heated up and I laugh my ass out watching how the argument ensues into a cat fight.
Recently, I was fighting with a Catholic, Christian and a Parsi and believe me, I was laughing like a dick for 2 hours straight by messing with their heads by touting evidence and reasoning they couldn't refute and watch them scurry like rats and spill stupid arguments which are monkeyshines. The Catholic guy was a legit nincompoop.

Me : If your God exists then can you explain the bad stuff in the world. Your Bible quotes the quotidian acts of magnanimity carried out by Jisusss.

Him : Bad things happen because we are bad. God cannot control our free will.

Me : Then how is he eligible to be called as god if he can't control our free will ? He can't prevent any calamity nor cause it. Neither can he seize control of anyone's mind without anyone's bullshittery regarding him. And what the hell is wrong with God himself ? Why does he need agents to deliver his message or we have to wait or *interpret* the situations in his favour.? His whole existence has been a mystery. Your Bible had to have a massive system update to get rid of the bullshit which condoned the suppression of free will and the tolerance for battery on any person who disrespects wife/man/mother/father. If your book was written by God or at least transcribed as it is, it's impossible to have so many errors in it. Clearly, your God is so powerful that he has to resort to manipulation and brainwashing tactics. But anyway. Why can't god prevent the bad things from happening ? It's the hapless sods who are the victims most of the times. Innocent women get raped and innocent children die due to bombing, etcetera

*/
Now carefully read the thing that follows this line. Firstly, I cried while laughing and then I used the thing to make fun of for the rest of the argument
*/

Him : God doesn't punish people unnecessarily. There is a reason behind his actions. Those people suffered the wrath of pain and misery for the sins they have committed. God let's bad stuff happen to teach <em> mankind a lesson </em>

This is precisely what happens when I try to fight rationally with most people. So yeah, read this post if you are looking forward to simply have a gag while arguing without getting triggered

#### BurnedOut

##### Active Member
I'm having a hard time following this topic.

I think facts and evidence is what really matters. Also clarity and understanding. The feelings of superiority are meaningless. I mean, in regards to the superiority, It's short-term gratification. Just let 'em go.
This is precisely the central theme of making the post. I'm tired of facing people who can't argue but call themselves pros and super smart without actually ever showing their smartness. Many people with good grades fall prey to this tendency.
They have this god-like feeling all the time. I simply don't get the point. I've held debates with toppers and anyone in their elitist groups. To me, they sound extremely stupid and incapable of arguing at a rational level notwithstanding their excellent grades. But nevertheless, their superiority regarding their intellect is ceaseless. Not that I'm saying that "if high grades then not intellect" but stating an irrational inconsistency in the whole belief system. The irrationality surfaced when the same people score good marks and claim that they haven't studied at all which is bullshit. I've seen these people working their ass out day and night but then, if they want to still assert their intellect argument, I can simply say g and conscientiousness has an inverse relationship. That, logically, makes them dumb.

The argument of "free will" and "it's my opinion, fuck you" and "I believe in what I want to." becomes bullshit per se if you choose your closed mindedness over improvisation just because a persona non grata is saying it. While humans change and they always will, I believe that belief systems should be changed in the light of contrasting new evidence and ignoring it temporarily simply due to biased against someone is unfair per se and doesn't make sense. The "Free will" argument gives you a pink slip to state what you believe in without getting bogged down by judgements before someone assesses its validity but it doesn't makes you immune from the fact that irrational belief systems should be discarded under the light of better evidence subjected. And this is how the "free will" bullshit is spammed across by the apparently "smarter than the rest" people. I'll make a post regarding that soon

#### Animekitty

##### I am all of my perception (Sally 666)
I would just admit God has restrictions, which I do, but I do know God has intervened in my life so I believe. I can see that degrading into just fighting is a negative, I avoid that. The priest saying rape/bad things is a punishment from God the last line, people simply believe what they are told/read and do not analyze it.

I can analyze it is just not perfect or fast. I learned general intelligence is the frontoparietal lobe junction, the central hub of the subnetworks. I am coordinated at 130 all my subnetworks to the central hub but this is an average, some of my sub-networks are severely damaged and slow. But the main hub is good at coordination so can still power the resources. I bring this up because I think everything in BurnedOuts network and subnetworks distributes 130 to all networks well mine is limited to my main hub. I am using everything in my brain the best I can but it is like Lance Armstrong on a rusty inferior bike.

I hope that was not off topic or non contributive.

#### BurnedOut

##### Active Member
I would just admit God has restrictions, which I do, but I do know God has intervened in my life so I believe. I can see that degrading into just fighting is a negative, I avoid that. The priest saying rape/bad things is a punishment from God the last line, people simply believe what they are told/read and do not analyze it.

I can analyze it is just not perfect or fast. I learned general intelligence is the frontoparietal lobe junction, the central hub of the subnetworks. I am coordinated at 130 all my subnetworks to the central hub but this is an average, some of my sub-networks are severely damaged and slow. But the main hub is good at coordination so can still power the resources. I bring this up because I think everything in BurnedOuts network and subnetworks distributes 130 to all networks well mine is limited to my main hub. I am using everything in my brain the best I can but it is like Lance Armstrong on a rusty inferior bike.

I hope that was not off topic or non contributive.

It's okay, your brain suffers from MD5 hashing issue. One-way hash. Its basically like you know you are right ~intuitively~ but you cannot backtrack the whole hash for the sake of finding the source code without having to bruteforce the hash every time. And bruteforcing along with the subprocess anxiety() running becomes difficult when youtr NRAM(Neuron-RAM) is overloaded with constant garbles of junk and feelings. I still don't see how I'm 130 g honestly. I couldn't properly explain the MD5 analogy but i hope you get the point.

#### Rolling Cattle

##### Redshift
This is precisely the central theme of making the post. I'm tired of facing people who can't argue but call themselves pros and super smart without actually ever showing their smartness. Many people with good grades fall prey to this tendency.
They have this god-like feeling all the time. I simply don't get the point. I've held debates with toppers and anyone in their elitist groups. To me, they sound extremely stupid and incapable of arguing at a rational level notwithstanding their excellent grades. But nevertheless, their superiority regarding their intellect is ceaseless. Not that I'm saying that "if high grades then not intellect" but stating an irrational inconsistency in the whole belief system. The irrationality surfaced when the same people score good marks and claim that they haven't studied at all which is bullshit. I've seen these people working their ass out day and night but then, if they want to still assert their intellect argument, I can simply say g and conscientiousness has an inverse relationship. That, logically, makes them dumb.

The argument of "free will" and "it's my opinion, fuck you" and "I believe in what I want to." becomes bullshit per se if you choose your closed mindedness over improvisation just because a persona non grata is saying it. While humans change and they always will, I believe that belief systems should be changed in the light of contrasting new evidence and ignoring it temporarily simply due to biased against someone is unfair per se and doesn't make sense. The "Free will" argument gives you a pink slip to state what you believe in without getting bogged down by judgements before someone assesses its validity but it doesn't makes you immune from the fact that irrational belief systems should be discarded under the light of better evidence subjected. And this is how the "free will" bullshit is spammed across by the apparently "smarter than the rest" people. I'll make a post regarding that soon
I agree with you. Their argument would be ad-hominem if they pull in their grades into it.

I'm a little fascinated with people holding on to misinformed information. (Actually I'll admit, I have an obsession over it) I try to see it from their side. I sometimes think It would be unreasonable of me to expect them to change their mind because I tell them they're wrong. There's nothing magical in my head that deems me right by default. If possible, it's often more fun to explain to them why I believe the things I do, and how I came to it while keeping an open mind at the same time. It's a challenge keeping that exchange brief enough for their attention span.

Agree with you on the superiority for knowing stuff thing. Anyone can watch a documentary, get the news, or read a book, it's nothing that special. A lot of our ideas originated from someone else.

#### Mercent

##### Redshirt
The Catholic guy was a legit nincompoop.

Me : If your God exists then can you explain the bad stuff in the world. Your Bible quotes the quotidian acts of magnanimity carried out by Jisusss.

Him : Bad things happen because we are bad. God cannot control our free will.

Me : Then how is he eligible to be called as god if he can't control our free will ? He can't prevent any calamity nor cause it. Neither can he seize control of anyone's mind without anyone's bullshittery regarding him. And what the hell is wrong with God himself ? Why does he need agents to deliver his message or we have to wait or *interpret* the situations in his favour.? His whole existence has been a mystery. Your Bible had to have a massive system update to get rid of the bullshit which condoned the suppression of free will and the tolerance for battery on any person who disrespects wife/man/mother/father. If your book was written by God or at least transcribed as it is, it's impossible to have so many errors in it. Clearly, your God is so powerful that he has to resort to manipulation and brainwashing tactics. But anyway. Why can't god prevent the bad things from happening ? It's the hapless sods who are the victims most of the times. Innocent women get raped and innocent children die due to bombing, etcetera
It is very easy for parties involved to get hot in the head when discussing the nature of divinity, both the apologist and the atheist, and once the head becomes hot, our ears closed off to the inputs from the other party and understanding stops.

It seems to me that you are getting pretty hot in the head when arguing with the theists. If your motive to try to understand the standpoint of the other party, in order to reach a position closer to the truth, i think you are doing it wrong; but if your motivation is just, like you say, to pour oil on fire and laugh with glee as the whole thing burns down, i think you are nailing it.

Anyhow i think you have had fun, but it seems to me that the Catholic gentleman has not been arguing for his case very well; i think you would have even more fun if you had a discussion with a Jehova's witness, since their characterization of God avoided many classical problems posited by atheism, such as the Problem of Evil (the main weakness of their doctrine, like many other sects, is their reliance on the Bible since the Bible is the basis on which they structure their arguments, and their argument for the reliability of the Bible leaves much to be desired).

#### BurnedOut

##### Active Member
It is very easy for parties involved to get hot in the head when discussing the nature of divinity, both the apologist and the atheist, and once the head becomes hot, our ears closed off to the inputs from the other party and understanding stops.

It seems to me that you are getting pretty hot in the head when arguing with the theists. If your motive to try to understand the standpoint of the other party, in order to reach a position closer to the truth, i think you are doing it wrong; but if your motivation is just, like you say, to pour oil on fire and laugh with glee as the whole thing burns down, i think you are nailing it.

Anyhow i think you have had fun, but it seems to me that the Catholic gentleman has not been arguing for his case very well; i think you would have even more fun if you had a discussion with a Jehova's witness, since their characterization of God avoided many classical problems posited by atheism, such as the Problem of Evil (the main weakness of their doctrine, like many other sects, is their reliance on the Bible since the Bible is the basis on which they structure their arguments, and their argument for the reliability of the Bible leaves much to be desired).

#### BurnedOut

##### Active Member
Jehovah's witness
If you consider <b>Jissuss's cult</b> as shitdows (I meant windows. I liked windows till windows 7 mainly due to its slick OS and gaming performance as a kid ) then Jehovah's witness can be considered as MacOS or whatever fucked up commercial variant of Unix which bilks money out of its buyers. These guys vacillate between realism (realism only germane to the faculty of science and empiricism and devoid of emotional undertakings) and theism. They claim to have <b> scientific validation of the Bible </b>. You know, there is a reason why every scientific article, journal or a derivation goes under scrutiny or employs statistics to explain the phenomenon positted in a bid to make it 'more realistic and objective' then possible. If science was derived from literature (without scrutiny) then it would have been a massive joke. It's upto you to decide whether Charles Darwin's evolution theory was an adult version of Aesop's fables or he actually did employ the faculty of reasoning or whether it was due to Jissus Albert Einstein was provided with the formula of energy which was touted as an impossible derivation at his time (Divine inspiration, you know eh ?) But sadly nuclear bombs were created after he had this epiphany granted to him by God. Or whether you want to claim that quantum mechanics is the proof of God because it doesn't follow classical physics. The whole basis of every theist's counterargument is the assumption that classical physics constitutes the world and since the bounds of universe is not known, it's doable to claim that God made the universe. But what God couldn't do is control free will which is alone enough to deny his existence at any level.
Atheism is Unix or Arch/LFS/Gentoo at its best. You have to be pragmatic and not expect magical solutions to every issue you face without being rational, that you can either make it an amazing distro by utilising it's benefits or fuck it up.

Many of you might spam with the psychological do-gooder aspect of religion, I can deny that by rationalising the claim as a theist and say 'Since I've seen 10-50 people around me showing no signs of religion benefitting or improving their life, I would immediately establish causality between theism and it's uselessness'. As tempting the last proposition sounds to be claimworthy, I would be a rational individual and say,' I've read the statistics. There is actually a connection between happiness and theist's.
Maybe it's not rational for me to pick fights on theistic tendencies but I get euphoria after quelling a nonsensical line (which is nonsensical itself ). I'm just looking for debates

#### BurnedOut

##### Active Member
The part where he say's the victim defends his belief in IQ not because IQ has good evidence supporting but only because the victim wants to maintain the belief IQ is real to have something to believe in. And then refuses to prove the evidence is wrong. This is super mega trollish. It seems that the troll either know reality and is fucking with you or has gotten so good deflecting people arguments that they have created a separate reality from real reality.
Don't succumb to reasoning like this and make deductions too quickly. This is flawed enough for any seasoned debator to beat your ass in a debate because then this kind of reasoning will be the prime crux of the psychological attacks he will later use to beat you. I'll voice a dissent against your belief mainly due to two reasons and I believe these reasons are enough to take back your opinion although I understand this is the internet and we don't peruse everything we say or read (which is good and bad both)

1. The rate of acceleration of the argument is really high. It quickly turned into a street fight. You can see that. So you can safely deduce that there was no time to explain the deductions.
2. You can't directly infer that the victim chose to 'believe' without any facts because the facts given are simply insufficient to make a deduction like that. The victim attacks the attacker regarding his total detestation towards IQ but it is an explicit assumption that he is bigotic towards the concept of IQ

#### Animekitty

##### I am all of my perception (Sally 666)
1. Acceleration (streetfight)
2. Assumptions (anything that proves your point)

My opinion: Flame wars suck.
(such unreasonableness, annoyingness, trolling, don't give a fuck)

And this:

TFW when “Animekitty” tells you what’s manly.