Finish taking critical thinking class

See this is what I'm talking about. Pointing out logical fallacies means you watch Rick and Morty? Many of the main ones were named thousands of years ago. I've never watched Rick and Morty before. Ignore fallacy users like this one OP

the fact that you point people who use fallacious reasoning to a list of fallacies tells me you really don't understand how argument or fallacies work.

Ad hominem. Instead of pointing out what I've said that's wrong you just insult me.

i'd have to be directing criticism toward you for that to be the case, really. i'm directing criticism towards to use of fallacies as a means to invalidate argument, and you happen to do that as well.
apparently you also don't really understand some of the fallacies you throw out there, too.

No amount of memorizing some wikipedia page is going to make you better at arguments. IQ is the only determinant. The fact that you think your critical thinking has improved by Rick and Mortying a wikipedia page suggests to me that you are of low IQ

It's annoying when people accuse me of shifting goalposts when I'm starting a new discussion. Some people want to argue over every tiny little detail or slim instance to make themselves "win" when I just want to move the hell on, I don't attach that much meaning to it.

if you're moving to an entirely new topic of discussion people who say that don't know what it means. if you're moving from one discussion you're on the back foot in to another that you think you stand a better chance with, it's not entirely inaccurate, though. i've met a fuck ton of people who do that.

> be me
> faggot
> be here
> post here
> suck dick

>college boy thinks he is enlightened
>pic is you

Attached: 1521260749667.png (657x539, 110K)

Two very low IQ responses, how ironic, leaving this thread. Retard NEETs

at least you tried. you'll get em next time, champ.

>thinks internet arguments are formal
Were you really looking for structure in boards that literally call themselves "politically incorrect"?

you know OP, is right. if you want formal argument maybe talk to people interested in formal argument. if you want discussion you can get it anywhere, the quality of it on the internet is pretty garbage though.

*retarded*
I respect your intellectualism mister smarty pants

>fallacy users
Holy fuck you fucking 80 IQ sperg he's having some bantz, not having a university debate. Are you always this retarded or is today special?
And he's probably right, maybe not specifically watching Rick and Morty, just generally thee know it all attitude coupled with the intellectual sharpness of a bad dragon dildo.

Get back in here and respond faggot.
Explain goalpost shifting and badstructure or fuck off.
Also sage'd until you do.

not only that if you legitimately responded to a case in formal debate by just talking about what fallacies were present or the few invalid argument forms it instantiated you'd get fucking demolished. but, doesn't into logic, i think.

FRAGILISTA BTFO

...
what? Re-structure, I can only make sense of this if you're talking about the other guy.

>he now has autism fits and spasms on the floor if you call someone an addhole because it's ad hom

i am talking about the other guy. just affirming the point, i suppose.

Asshole wtf fucking shit idiot device

I, personally, an user hate every common argument we have here. Every arguementer should highly neurotic and egocentric to the absurd but this is pointed out so fucking much and you don't flow a character out ~> true entertainment

Only time it is annoying is when some sperg in a general says something retarded, gets BTFO, and regardless of that next thread he pops in and says the same wrong retarded thing as if he did not just get his ass handed to him. It is the most annoying and most jewish thing ever.

Attached: 1483621443990.jpg (850x446, 195K)

kek
k gotcha

shifting the goalposts just means you change what's required once someone fulfills your original "goal" for them. they have to prove x, and once they've done that you say "well, what about proving y?". y is completely unrelated, and not what you set out to discuss, but you shift the goal to y so that you haven't been proven wrong.

as for structure i'm guessing he's talking about forms? so something like denying the antecedent is an invalid form like so:
if x then y
not x
therefore not y
as for whether or not this matters on the internet: it doesn't. OP is expecting too much out of a place that's not designed for it.

>Critical thinking class.
Holy shit, how stupid do you have to be to be unable to think critically.
So let's see if I got this right, someone told you how to not be a retard?
Jesus.

Attached: OwO.jpg (207x300, 14K)

Lol nah, you're a fag.

Attached: the virgin argumentation vs the chad-hominem.jpg (2048x833, 131K)

It's called adding to your argument faggot. Don't you want to attack your opponent in many ways?

If you're so smart that you're able to critically think then you should have been able to realize that the average person isn't that bright. Obviously there are going to be classes for it.

If everyone was a critical thinker we would have way less problems in society.

if you're talking about moving goalposts, it's not. because you're not supplying more proof of a claim you've made, you're changing what it is that's claimed. or changing what it is that's being discussed. it works like this:
"prove x to me with this kind of evidence."
"okay, here's proof of x to the standard you specified."
"well, that's not all you need, you actually need proof of x in the form of this, too."
the standard has changed. what you've agreed upon as a "goal" has changed. goalposts have moved.

I don't move goal posts, I add to them.

Attached: winking pepe.jpg (349x356, 23K)

holy shit...
A fucking 3rd grade concept, brought into uni.
You are a fucking failure.
Critically thinking is not acquired, you have it or you don't. Like autism. Which you have.
Feel proud college boy?

>using the fallacy fallacy

lol brainlet

Attached: 1486361624268.png (680x680, 430K)

whenever someone gets dead serious about an argument or fallacies on Jow Forums they're just butthurt

What are you supposed to do when someone provides "evidence" and they are still wrong?

I know most people are dumb, but I didn't expect there to be classes in school for it.
I mean, yeah there being a class for it is not that surprising, but in public schools? That's just crazy to me.
I'm the guy you replied to btw,
this isn't me.

wtf. im not you. faggot. gtfo out of here lmao. you wish you were me.

okay, let's assume someone is wrong about something: you ask them to provide evidence to a certain standard that isn't reachable for a false conclusion, whatever that false conclusion is. assuming you understand the subject matter you should be able to determine what constitutes "proof" and you should establish it to begin with. also, there's a difference between shifting standards to avoid "losing" and shifting them because something that was given is just plain wrong (a forgery, or a lie, etc.).
ok dude.

So you can sometimes move the goalposts?

>Critically thinking is not acquired
Did you not just suggest that you acquire and understand the concept of critical thinking once you are around 3rd grade? Should have spent a little more time critically thinking.

I would guess that OP is talking about a class in university. Critical thinking is not necessary to being a wage slave to society so I doubt schools would waste resources teaching it.

OP here. to my defense I only took it as it was a known 'bird' course. Half of the course was just a very vague version of the first few lectures from my discrete math course, and the second half discussed fallacies, probabilities, and deciding which experts to trust as a layman using heuristics. My post was kind of an exaggeration as I already know intuitively what makes a good or bad argument.

>fallacy logic
>you
This picture
IS ACTUALLY
(YOU).

Attached: 1521790294060.png (403x448, 53K)

assuming that the original standard is lacking in some way, yes. it's usually going to be fairly clear when this isn't unreasonable. i ask you for proof that a group of men dressed as ducks burned down the empire state building, you give it to me, and i have to add "not from a satirical source" to the criteria. the distinction is pretty easy to make assuming that everyone's arguing in good faith.

>look mom!! i used green meme arrows@!!

Attached: 1520967699537.png (645x729, 82K)

my mommi just made me acutaly tendies.
Youres is probably dead
>mfw

Attached: 1523074167522.png (283x270, 178K)

Me and my mom right now, not even kidiing. Bought to take a picture.

Attached: 1523734093631.png (637x510, 586K)

It depends on who's arguing.
I make no fallacies, except "ad hominems" but that's just because I love to call people brainlets and morons.

Brainwashed my friend after one semester! He went from Eddie Bravo tier constantly studying conspiracy theories and talking about them to never talking about them again.

well the good news is that calling someone stupid isn't an ad hominem, unless you're saying they're stupid, and therefore their argument is invalid. insulting people isn't argumentum ad hominem, it's just insulting people.

Lmao you took a single phi 101 class and think you can concisely and accurately deconstruct arguments now, nigga I bet you struggled on 5pt proposition truthtables nigga I bet you get confused by modus tollens I bet you didn't even read that Mills book for your required reading nigga get a grip

lmao OP BTFO

That's where you're wrong kiddo. Phi 101 was nothing more than a baby course to allow my brain to digest a truly good course calculus.
I've already mastered the chain rule and beyond. Quotient rule was a joke. Product rule remains my specialty.

I ask my professor his thoughts on quantum mechanics and partial derivatives. He's impressed i know about the subject. We converse after class for some time, sharing mathematical insights; i can keep up. He tells me of great things ahead like series and laplacians. I tell him i already read about series on wikipedia. He is yet again impressed at my enthusiasm. What a joy it is to have your professor visibly brighten when he learns of your talents.

And now I sit here wondering what it must be like to be a brainlet, unable to engage your professor as an intellectual peer. All of the deep conversations you people must miss out on because you aren't able to overcome the intellectual IQ barrier that stands in the way of your academic success... it's so sad. My professor and I know each other on first name basis now, but i call him Dr. out of respect.

And yet here you brainlets sit, probably havent even made eye contact with yours out of fear that they will gauge your brainlet IQ levels.

A true shame, but just know it is because i was born special that i am special. I can't help being a genius, nor can my professor. Two of a kind is two flocks in a bush.

lmao this nigga thinks going to office hours and having a conversation with your teacher about reading Wikipedia is an accomplishment listen faggot you have to post all that to respond to me, the first thing that phi class should have taught you was how to make a simple AxB you spergy little fairy

mein gott... es ist vorbei

cant tell if youre actually being baited this hard or you guys are just fucking around

I'm honestly b8d but I can't stand the faggots I've dealt with that actually do this. Triggered me broh

Most online argumentation ends up going in circles because neither party has a want to see past their viewpoints. It's a general mental flaw which must be overcome by employing humility and actively working against arrogance. Remember that recognizing that you are incorrect is the most important part of argumentation.

fair enough, i guess it could be cathartic to pretend this user represents those dicks and just let it all out.stop saying nigga so often man even ironically like that its pretty cringe

Nigga are you policing my speech nigga step the fuck away from that keyboard nigger

It's easily forgotten that arguments are methods of discussion, not aggression.

you can keep doing it sure but it just reveals how young or juvenile you are. i guess being young isnt a bad thing though so go ahead bro

Nigga look how mad you are at the most banal form of shitposting I mean nigga this is like scraping sticks together to make a fire nigga this is some kindergarten shit my nigga I mean nigga don't you despise how blacks actually talk

holy shit. This is excellent bait you're getting me to reply and I know it's bait but I have to reply. I mean fucking bragging about 'specializing' in f'(x)g(x) + g'(x)f(x).
Is this a pasta I don't know?

boards.fireden.net/sci/search/text/chain rule specialty/

You guys are funnier than reddit.

>about to finish college
>still can't argue for shit

at least i can recognize some of the bait now

Something that can be considered a fallacy isn't wrong by default.

Does anyone else think arguing about fallacies is fucking retarded?
Like its fine in professional setting, but why here?
Why waste time talking about something that no one cares about?

Attached: 1483651359016.png (601x508, 127K)

ancient era pasta

>I don't care about it so that means no one else does
Nice fallacy fag.

I barely finished high school and I can recognize bait a mile away.
I don't know how bait posts get any (yous) these days, its like they don't even try.

if someone could just misrepresent your argument, give zero evidence for what they say, make outlandish claims and appeal to falsehoods and not be called out on it, then anything goes and it turns into a shitflinging match, which most internet arguments end up being anyway, so it's good to avoid them.

Attached: 1512700263138.jpg (960x944, 60K)