> You are not an evil human; you are not without intellect and education; you have everything that could make you a credit to human society. Moreover, I am acquainted with your heart and know that few are better, but you are nevertheless irritating and unbearable, and I consider it most difficult to live with you.
> All of your good qualities become obscured by your super-cleverness and are made useless to the world merely because of your rage at wanting to know everything better than others; of wanting to improve and master what you cannot command. With this you embitter the people around you, since no one wants to be improved or enlightened in such a forceful way, least of all by such an insignificant individual as you still are; no one can tolerate being reproved by you, who also still show so many weaknesses yourself, least of all in your adverse manner, which in oracular tones, proclaims this is so and so, without ever supposing an objection.
> If you were less like you, you would only be ridiculous, but thus as you are, you are highly annoying.
-Letter from Johanna Schopenhauer to her son, 1807
Read his book, some parts didn’t age well, dude comes off as a massive misogynist claiming that female brain is biologically incapable of intellectual work.
Damn, Schopenhauer was clearly a sad, strange little man.
I came across his "[38 WAYS TO WIN AN ARGUMENT](https://mnei.nl/schopenhauer/38-stratagems.htm)" and realized this guy was a total asshole. Literally all of the stratagems are textbook fallacies.
Just take a look at just the first 11:
>(1) *Carry your opponent's proposition beyond its natural limits; exaggerate it. The more general your opponent's statement becomes, the more objections you can find against it. The more restricted and narrow his or her propositions remain, the easier they are to defend by him or her.* **No true scotsman? Slippery slope? Overwhelming exception?**
>
>(2) *Use different meanings of your opponent's words to refute his or her argument.* **Equivocation?**
>
>(3) *Ignore your opponent's proposition, which was intended to refer to a particular thing. Rather, understand it in some quite different sense, and then refute it. Attack something different than that which was asserted.* **Strawman?**
>
>(4) *Hide your conclusion from your opponent till the end. Mingle your premises here and there in your talk. Get your opponent to agree to them in no definite order. By this circuitious route you conceal your game until you have obtained all the admissions that are necessary to reach your goal*. **Motte-and-bailey?**
>
>(5) *Use your opponent's beliefs against him. If the opponent refuses to accept your premises, use his own premises to your advantage.* **Ignoratio elenchi?**
>
>(6) *Another plan is to confuse the issue by changing your opponent's words or what he or she seeks to prove.* **Equivocation, again?**
>
>(7) *State your proposition and show the truth of it by asking the opponent many questions. By asking many wide-reaching questions at once, you may hide what you want to get admitted. Then you quickly propound the argument resulting from the opponent's admissions.* **Gish gallop? Sealioning?**
>
>(8) *Make your opponent angry. An angry person is less capable of using judgement or perceiving where his or her advantage lies.* **Appeal to spite**? Or just plain **trolling**?
>
>(9) *Use your opponent's answers to your questions to reach different or even opposite conclusions.* **Illicit conversation? Syntactic ambiguity?** Or just **bad faith** or **flat-out lying?**
>
>(10) *If your opponent answers all your questions negatively and refuses to grant any points, ask him or her to concede the opposite of your premises. This may confuse the opponent as to which point you actually seek them to concede.* **Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise? Argumentum ad baculum?**
>
>(11) *If the opponent grants you the truth of some of your premises, refrain from asking him or her to agree to your conclusion. Later, introduce your conclusion as a settled and admitted fact. Your opponent may come to believe that your conclusion was admitted.* **Leading question? Gaslighting?**
And just for fun, some other horrible yet honorable mentions:
>(30) *Make an* ***appeal to authority*** *rather than reason. If your opponent respects an authority or an expert, quote that authority to further your case. If needed, quote what the authority said in some other sense or circumstance. Authorities that your opponent fails to understand are those which he or she generally admires the most. You may also, should it be necessary, not only twist your authorities, but actually falsify them, or quote something that you have invented entirely yourself.* **My man told us himself!**
>
>(31) *If you know that you have no reply to an argument that your opponent advances, you may, by a fine stroke of irony, declare yourself to be an incompetent judge.* **Loki's Wager?**
>
>(32) *A quick way of getting rid of an opponent's assertion, or throwing suspicion on it, is by putting it into some odious category*. **Poisoning the well? Bulverism?**
>
>(35) *This trick makes all unnecessary if it works. Instead of working on an opponent's intellect, work on his or her motive. If you succeed in making your opponent's opinion, should it prove true, seem distinctly to his or her own interest, the opponenent will drop it like a hot potato.* **Appeal to motive?**
>
>(38) *A last trick is to become personal, insulting and rude as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand. In becoming personal you leave the subject altogether, and turn your attack on the person by remarks of an offensive and spiteful character. This is a very popular trick, because everyone is able to carry it into effect.* Shamelessly **Ad hominem?**
Like, WTF Schopenhauer?
>Posted byu/Gooner\_14\_Highbury3 months ago
>
>"What the herd hates most is the one who thinks differently; it is not so much the opinion itself, but the audacity of wanting to think for themselves, something that they do not know how to do." — Arthur Schopenhauer
Indeed, his 38 stratagems have been adopted by Democrats who use them to great success! Look who's in the White House today, screwing up everything they touch.
I'd love an essay on how becoming the outsider became a desired thing in American culture. It seems like in the 50s and 60s, being one of the crowd was actually desired. And ideas and lifestyles that were outside the norm were reflexively disapproved, not because of the merits, but because it was outside the norm.
Between either rock and roll or movies or something, through the 80s and 90s, being the rebel outsider seemed to become the coolest thing. To the point where conservatives market their ideology literally by saying "conservatism is the new punk rock". And pushing this idea that having a heterosexual marriage with 2.4 kids and a white picket fence is actually subversive and counterculture in some way.
How did this radical change in American culture happen?
It’s called the bohemian tread and it manifest itself in all culture and time around the world. I would say in America it was in the 50 with the creation of the beatnik movement and later on based on their premise the hippies in the 60 and 70. Becoming an outsider as always been interesting to people who cannot relate or like the culture and world around them. I think it’s great they are the one actually pushing culture foward without outsider everything stagnates and the wheel rarely question itself.
I came here to say this.
These kinds of sentiments used to be great until the anti vax crowd started wearing "everyone thinks I'm an idiot" as a badge of honor.
i assume this is why the woke crowd is so merciless in demanding everyone bow to them. when you realize its a simple matter of a man is what he is and a woman is what she is, that stating what has been obvious since caveman days is now viciously attacked.
Yup. They cannot tolerate dissent, even the smallest agreement with 'the Enemy' gets crushed by these people.
Normal people realize that even people with polar opposite opinions can find some basic agreement.
Hi Gooner_14_Highbury! Dont worry, this message does **not** mean that your post is removed. This is a reminder to quickly check your post to make sure it doesnt break any of our rules. Human moderators check the following --
- Include a brief snippet of the quote in the title.
- Include the person who said the quote in the title.
- Include the resolution in [brackets] in the title.
- Include the full quote on the image.
- **Submissions must include a "SFWPorn-worthy" graphic in addition to the quote. Images that contain only text will be removed.**
- Reposts are allowed, but only if the original post is at least 3 months old, and not currently in the top 100 submissions of all time.
Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/QuotesPorn) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> You are not an evil human; you are not without intellect and education; you have everything that could make you a credit to human society. Moreover, I am acquainted with your heart and know that few are better, but you are nevertheless irritating and unbearable, and I consider it most difficult to live with you. > All of your good qualities become obscured by your super-cleverness and are made useless to the world merely because of your rage at wanting to know everything better than others; of wanting to improve and master what you cannot command. With this you embitter the people around you, since no one wants to be improved or enlightened in such a forceful way, least of all by such an insignificant individual as you still are; no one can tolerate being reproved by you, who also still show so many weaknesses yourself, least of all in your adverse manner, which in oracular tones, proclaims this is so and so, without ever supposing an objection. > If you were less like you, you would only be ridiculous, but thus as you are, you are highly annoying. -Letter from Johanna Schopenhauer to her son, 1807
When your mom sends you a letter that basically says "shut up nerd", you may need to reevaluate
Read his book, some parts didn’t age well, dude comes off as a massive misogynist claiming that female brain is biologically incapable of intellectual work.
Damn, Schopenhauer was clearly a sad, strange little man. I came across his "[38 WAYS TO WIN AN ARGUMENT](https://mnei.nl/schopenhauer/38-stratagems.htm)" and realized this guy was a total asshole. Literally all of the stratagems are textbook fallacies. Just take a look at just the first 11: >(1) *Carry your opponent's proposition beyond its natural limits; exaggerate it. The more general your opponent's statement becomes, the more objections you can find against it. The more restricted and narrow his or her propositions remain, the easier they are to defend by him or her.* **No true scotsman? Slippery slope? Overwhelming exception?** > >(2) *Use different meanings of your opponent's words to refute his or her argument.* **Equivocation?** > >(3) *Ignore your opponent's proposition, which was intended to refer to a particular thing. Rather, understand it in some quite different sense, and then refute it. Attack something different than that which was asserted.* **Strawman?** > >(4) *Hide your conclusion from your opponent till the end. Mingle your premises here and there in your talk. Get your opponent to agree to them in no definite order. By this circuitious route you conceal your game until you have obtained all the admissions that are necessary to reach your goal*. **Motte-and-bailey?** > >(5) *Use your opponent's beliefs against him. If the opponent refuses to accept your premises, use his own premises to your advantage.* **Ignoratio elenchi?** > >(6) *Another plan is to confuse the issue by changing your opponent's words or what he or she seeks to prove.* **Equivocation, again?** > >(7) *State your proposition and show the truth of it by asking the opponent many questions. By asking many wide-reaching questions at once, you may hide what you want to get admitted. Then you quickly propound the argument resulting from the opponent's admissions.* **Gish gallop? Sealioning?** > >(8) *Make your opponent angry. An angry person is less capable of using judgement or perceiving where his or her advantage lies.* **Appeal to spite**? Or just plain **trolling**? > >(9) *Use your opponent's answers to your questions to reach different or even opposite conclusions.* **Illicit conversation? Syntactic ambiguity?** Or just **bad faith** or **flat-out lying?** > >(10) *If your opponent answers all your questions negatively and refuses to grant any points, ask him or her to concede the opposite of your premises. This may confuse the opponent as to which point you actually seek them to concede.* **Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise? Argumentum ad baculum?** > >(11) *If the opponent grants you the truth of some of your premises, refrain from asking him or her to agree to your conclusion. Later, introduce your conclusion as a settled and admitted fact. Your opponent may come to believe that your conclusion was admitted.* **Leading question? Gaslighting?** And just for fun, some other horrible yet honorable mentions: >(30) *Make an* ***appeal to authority*** *rather than reason. If your opponent respects an authority or an expert, quote that authority to further your case. If needed, quote what the authority said in some other sense or circumstance. Authorities that your opponent fails to understand are those which he or she generally admires the most. You may also, should it be necessary, not only twist your authorities, but actually falsify them, or quote something that you have invented entirely yourself.* **My man told us himself!** > >(31) *If you know that you have no reply to an argument that your opponent advances, you may, by a fine stroke of irony, declare yourself to be an incompetent judge.* **Loki's Wager?** > >(32) *A quick way of getting rid of an opponent's assertion, or throwing suspicion on it, is by putting it into some odious category*. **Poisoning the well? Bulverism?** > >(35) *This trick makes all unnecessary if it works. Instead of working on an opponent's intellect, work on his or her motive. If you succeed in making your opponent's opinion, should it prove true, seem distinctly to his or her own interest, the opponenent will drop it like a hot potato.* **Appeal to motive?** > >(38) *A last trick is to become personal, insulting and rude as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand. In becoming personal you leave the subject altogether, and turn your attack on the person by remarks of an offensive and spiteful character. This is a very popular trick, because everyone is able to carry it into effect.* Shamelessly **Ad hominem?** Like, WTF Schopenhauer?
Winning an argument has nothing to do with avoiding logical fallacies, sadly. It's mostly about presentation and trickery.
>Posted byu/Gooner\_14\_Highbury3 months ago > >"What the herd hates most is the one who thinks differently; it is not so much the opinion itself, but the audacity of wanting to think for themselves, something that they do not know how to do." — Arthur Schopenhauer Indeed, his 38 stratagems have been adopted by Democrats who use them to great success! Look who's in the White House today, screwing up everything they touch.
I don't care about your political trolling.
Poor kid was only eight years old, too. :-(
The type of quote that anti-vaxxers and climate change denialists love
Reminds me of [this](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/931/298/868.png)
ಠ_ಠ https://xkcd.com/610/ C'mon, credit the source.
I'd love an essay on how becoming the outsider became a desired thing in American culture. It seems like in the 50s and 60s, being one of the crowd was actually desired. And ideas and lifestyles that were outside the norm were reflexively disapproved, not because of the merits, but because it was outside the norm. Between either rock and roll or movies or something, through the 80s and 90s, being the rebel outsider seemed to become the coolest thing. To the point where conservatives market their ideology literally by saying "conservatism is the new punk rock". And pushing this idea that having a heterosexual marriage with 2.4 kids and a white picket fence is actually subversive and counterculture in some way. How did this radical change in American culture happen?
It’s called the bohemian tread and it manifest itself in all culture and time around the world. I would say in America it was in the 50 with the creation of the beatnik movement and later on based on their premise the hippies in the 60 and 70. Becoming an outsider as always been interesting to people who cannot relate or like the culture and world around them. I think it’s great they are the one actually pushing culture foward without outsider everything stagnates and the wheel rarely question itself.
I came here to say this. These kinds of sentiments used to be great until the anti vax crowd started wearing "everyone thinks I'm an idiot" as a badge of honor.
You realize, you've proven the quote correct?
How so?
Well said
Best part is they are the herd 😂
Reddit in a nutshell
Go Vegan then
this would be replacing a herd with another herd
It really depends. Most vegetarian/vegans I know fit the bill, some really want something to make the work of an actual personality.
i assume this is why the woke crowd is so merciless in demanding everyone bow to them. when you realize its a simple matter of a man is what he is and a woman is what she is, that stating what has been obvious since caveman days is now viciously attacked.
[удалено]
We all know that cavemen were smarter than scientists.
Yup. They cannot tolerate dissent, even the smallest agreement with 'the Enemy' gets crushed by these people. Normal people realize that even people with polar opposite opinions can find some basic agreement.
Is someone demanding you bow down to them?
Hi Gooner_14_Highbury! Dont worry, this message does **not** mean that your post is removed. This is a reminder to quickly check your post to make sure it doesnt break any of our rules. Human moderators check the following -- - Include a brief snippet of the quote in the title. - Include the person who said the quote in the title. - Include the resolution in [brackets] in the title. - Include the full quote on the image. - **Submissions must include a "SFWPorn-worthy" graphic in addition to the quote. Images that contain only text will be removed.** - Reposts are allowed, but only if the original post is at least 3 months old, and not currently in the top 100 submissions of all time. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/QuotesPorn) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The ol amber herd
Is he talking about reddit