Are you tired of losing an argument in a discussion? Do you want everyone to suffer? Well, I won't show you how to win your argument: instead I'll explain how to make your enemies lose ANY argument. Methodological foundation, I present you, has many different names and faces in it's manifold of applications: people call it cultural marxism, deconstruction or just separatism… But I call it subjective idealism, because it denies existence "objective" ideals.
So you want to prove that "2+2=5"? Not so fast! First ask your opponent what proves "2+2=4" and watch the silly jerk trying to invoke his hollow schoolbook erudition. If he has PhD in math, then it will be worse for him, as he will present you some set theoretic definitions, based on very specific axiomatic presuppositions, which no one ought to accept "true", as there is no "objective truth", these math freaks masturbate at.
Next step would be doubting the concept of "truth" itself, because truth is subjective, so "2+2=4" has no reason to be true for everyone. Ask your opponent to define "truth" and counter any dictionary references the same way I shown you how to counter "2+2=4" argument: i.e. ask "what makes your definition of truth itself to be true?"
Now when the fragile concept of "truth" was dismantled, you can start breaking other societal foundations. Ask "what is God", ask "why Hitler is evil", ask "why English must be common language".. then turn the answers given to you against your opponent - the more he answers you, the more he destroys his own phony ontology. In general, doubt everything: ask explanations, ask definitions, ask to show (i.e. "show us God", or "show us why Hitler is evil" or "show us infinity"), ask "what makes Jews human", ask "why your `friend` is really your friend". Remember: nothing is "objective" and "objectivity" is a buzzword.
A much simpler method is to be a member of a visible minority and state that your opponent is trying to insert his privilege by explaining how you're wrong.
So you want to prove that "2+2=5"? Not so fast! First ask your opponent what proves "2+2=4" % python
Python 2.7.2 (default, Jun 20 2012, 16:23:33)
[GCC 4.2.1 Compatible Apple Clang 4.0 (tags/Apple/clang-418.0.60)] on darwin
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> 2 + 2
4
>>> 2 + 2 == 5
False
what makes your definition of truth itself to be true? >>> True == True
True
>>>
Name:
Anonymous2012-12-21 9:27
>>21
What makes your FIOC's definition of truth being true?
>>16
Cutie, feminism is our ally, because it divides society by 2. I.e. feminists agree that there is nothing in common between man and woman. What we need is more separatism and discord, more discrepancy. Support your local terrorists!
Name:
Anonymous2012-12-21 10:11
>>15
Sophistry is a weak tactics - i.e. it can be easily countered.
On the other hand, there is no defense against exposing subjectivity. That is why they outright forbid subjectivism with "anti-strife-incitement" laws.
The easiest way to win is always to make your enemies fight for you.
>>25
It is then impossible for anybody to win for no arguments will ever be concrete. It seems like circular reasoning to me.
Name:
Anonymous2012-12-21 17:37
>>23 def python():
return 'ONE WORD FORCED INDENTATION OF THE CODE'
/thread
Name:
Anonymous2012-12-22 17:39
Once seen how woman using this subjectivism method. I usually disrespect girls, due to their conformist and non-conflict nature. But this feminist girl (from latvian "Woman Studies" group) easily managed to put down a few mathematicians and engineers, showing that Perelman is overrated and mathematics is just a pseudoscience. That is when I recognized potential intelligence, girls usually hide, trying to be nice.
>>37
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLl
>EGIN
>EGIN
>EGIN EGIN EGIN
Name:
Anonymous2012-12-22 21:38
>>38
I don't take "no" for an answer from goyish animals.