Posts by Patrick Wright2

steelridge58 said:It's probably more about a lack of willingness to look at oneself with enough objectivity or from a certain distance, rather than a literal inability to do so. When you actually have that willingness, doors open up to understanding and the possibility of revising your own stances and so on. But when that willingness isn't there, then all that insisting on pointing out a logical fallacy—one that some third-party observer clearly sees in their own reasoning—is just futile and pointless.
Now, why that willingness is missing... well, that depends entirely on the individual and their deep-seated beliefs. You can only tolerate your own mistake if you're aware of it or at least harbor some doubt; otherwise, you don't even have a relationship with the error to begin with (so you couldn't possibly tolerate it).

As has already been pointed out here, being right isn't the point; that shouldn't be the goal of a discussion anyway. So, as an outside observer, if you spot something you feel the need to react to, it's enough to just state your opinion and stay involved in the conversation as long as it remains meaningful and constructive, without feeling any pressure to convince anyone of anything.

I love how you lay things out so clearly because if I actually tried to match that kind of precision myself, I’d probably end up cutting half my response just to keep up with you. 😉

Think of it this way. Logic is basically just a tool, right? It’s like having a heavy-duty hammer in your kit that you use to build out an airtight argument from scratch. But at the same time, it’s that exact same hammer you swing to absolutely demolish someone else's point if their reasoning turns out to have flimsy walls or a shaky foundation.
Look, the thing is, sometimes our own arguments have these massive walls and foundations that our hammer can just absolutely demolish. If we’ve already got that hammer in our hands and actually know how to swing it, isn't it way better to just tear down our own shaky claims ourselves before they fall apart? Otherwise, those half-baked ideas are just gonna come crashing down on our heads right when we least expect it.

placidranger said:The "problem" is that people often argue just to win. I don't think anyone is immune to that ego boost, even when they enter a debate thinking they're being objective. It clouds the logic—inevitably.

Another thing—this logical inconsistency is especially prevalent among highly intelligent people. They're used to winning intellectual sparring matches. Once they've built a conviction, it's usually well-reasoned, but that "certainty" can become a blind spot that overrides pure logic.
edit: which explains why most members of Mensa just bicker instead of building anything constructive. 😁

I wouldn't define "certainty" as much as an emotion—one that overpowers the rational side. Avoiding it requires specific training. 😁

Have you encountered this mindset before? And how do you force those types to apply the same logical standards to themselves as they do to everyone else?

It won't always work. Some people are simply closed off to changing their minds. You have to respect their perspective while pointing out where they're right and highlighting the new evidence they've conveniently ignored.

Man, I think you hit the nail right on the head here.
A person can be incredibly sharp and analytical, building an opinion on a foundation of solid arguments, yet when they actually sit down to talk it out, their whole position gets dismantled logically without them even realizing it, simply because that "certainty"—that deep-seated confidence in their own lived experience—makes them mentally lazy, so instead of actually weighing the new evidence that proves them wrong, they’ll just go on autopilot and hunt for any random counter-argument to shake the other person up, even if the other guy is actually onto something.
So even though there was a real chance to actually uncover the truth of the matter, that window slams shut because they just couldn't stay intellectually honest.

placidranger said:seeking truth is a much higher motivation than what most people actually bring to a conversation or an argument in their daily lives. It's hard to shake those lower motives—they're baked right into how we function.

Those lower motives are usually about climbing the social ladder—elevating yourself by tearing someone else down, or both at once. Evolution hardwired this into us because status brings benefits, and all of that carries over perfectly into the digital world.

For instance, the subtext in the very first post of this thread is basically, "They’re inconsistent, I’m not; I’m better/above them."
Or take this post here: "I am explaining things to you, therefore I am superior." 😬
Subtle stuff. If memory serves, it's called meta-communication. Messages hidden between the lines.

Not even close, man. It’s common sense that it's way easier to spot the exact same crap in someone else when you're already doing it yourself, so I actually caught my own hypocrisy before I ever noticed it in anyone else, and honestly, it bugs me just as much when I see it in myself as it does when I see it in others.

Rachel Palmer21 said:It seems to me that there are essentially two distinct categories of discourse occurring within this forum: those discussions driven by pure, unadulterated logic, and those fueled by nothing but raw emotion. Personally, I find myself gravitating much more toward the latter.
Now, don't get me wrong; both approaches represent perfectly valid ways for primates—and by extension, humans—to communicate their perspectives.
(However, one must be careful to avoid mixing these two realms together—that is to say, one shouldn't attempt to counter logic with logic, nor should they try to meet emotional outbursts with more emotions.)

The problem is they get mixed up all the time, and half the time, it's the exact same person doing the mixing.

goldeneagle8 said:Look, I get it, but who actually decides what counts as "truth" in philosophy anyway? It’s like nobody ever wants to step up and admit they’re totally wrong...😍The person sitting in judgment always claims they can see some deeper layer that you're just missing, which is their way of acting like they're somehow more enlightened than you, but if there isn't even a judge to call out, then the whole thing feels pretty pointless because you've got nowhere to go to prove you actually know your stuff...

Look, a judgment has to be logically sound to be considered true, but being true doesn't automatically make a judgment logically sound.
That's why our first move has to be separating the valid arguments from the invalid ones, since an invalid argument can't be true by its very nature. That's really the core of the issue here.

When you're trying to nail down the truth between two valid concepts, it all comes down to checking the premises, and checking those premises depends entirely on your method of verification, which honestly is enough material for a whole new thread on this forum. 😉

goldeneagle8 said:I honestly don't even know how to break this down for you guys, but there’s really no point in wasting good arguments if all you care about is acting like a know-it-all and trying to look superior to everyone else... at the end of the day, you're just performing for attention and waiting for applause, which basically makes you no different from someone like Taylor Swift...

Spot on. You should be using your brain to actually find the truth, not just twisting things to back up some pre-packaged opinion or a stubborn point of view.

goldeneagle8 said:Look, I’m not saying you guys aren't smart—trust me, you definitely are—but let's be real, everyone here is just looking out for number one... you always have to be the smartest person in the room while acting like everyone else is totally clueless and knows nothing compared to you... from what I can tell reading this sub, about half of every single post is just people whining about how nobody else understands basic logic or how to actually explain things, just like this opening post right here... honestly, what I really want to know is why people go out of their way to belittle others just to feel superior (and it's always for that same old "I'm the genius here" ego trip, because obviously, there's no other reason for it besides that)... so yeah, basically, everyone here is just incredibly insecure, no matter how much they actually know... everybody just *has* to be right all the time... if that's the case, then this isn't even a real discussion... peace out

Basically, most people don't have a clue how logic works, so you can easily imagine how much someone who actually knows their stuff is going to lose it when they hit a simple, undeniable flaw in an argument. It's like if you were a pro mathematician and some guy, absolutely certain of himself, tried to tell you that 10+10=21 even though you know for a fact it isn't, and he refuses to budge—of course you're gonna lose your cool and start using ad hominem attacks.
See, logic is a lot like math; both rely on a specific set of rules you absolutely have to follow.

As for looking out for your own interests, you can't ignore the human element, specifically that raw urge to just win an argument at any cost. People who actually think clearly can easily lead an opponent down a rabbit hole and defend their stance with a massive arsenal of points, mostly because they're wired to look pro their own argument from every possible angle. But the real trouble starts with selectivity, which is basically just ignoring anything contra your own point.

steelridge58 said:So, what we're looking at here is someone using their own logical reasoning to tear down a theory without realizing they're simultaneously tearing down their own argument in the process.
If they truly don't see it, then you can't really accuse them of being intellectually hypocritical or inconsistent, since they aren't even aware they're creating a contradiction if one exists.
In that scenario, all you can really do is point out where the contradiction lies and try to defend your position logically, or rather, start from the premise of the contradiction itself to prove it.

Regardless, if someone actually realizes their own claim is contradictory and fundamentally unsustainable, but they stubbornly cling to it anyway just because they refuse to back down, then honestly, that's not your problem to solve. 🙂

I'm assuming when you say "quite selectively" or "choosing where to apply logic," you're referring to people who are willing to be critical of others, but lack any sense of self-criticism?

Pretty much. You can totally see it happening—people pour all this massive energy into logically dismantling someone else's point just to prove them wrong, yet their own arguments are built on nothing but sand.
How do you even explain that kind of behavior, where a person goes absolutely scorched earth on someone making an illogical claim while their own stance lacks any actual logical foundation? Honestly, I'd call it pure intellectual hypocrisy. It wouldn't even bug me that much if it weren't coming from people who constantly brag about knowing philosophy or formal logic, so it honestly blows my mind how far some folks will go to ignore a blatant error in their own reasoning, even when it's staring them right in the face like a glaring mistake to any objective observer.
Maybe it’s just because some people straight-up lack the capacity to look at themselves objectively. 🤷

I’ve been noticing lately on this forum that some folks—and I’m talking about the ones who actually show a spark of intelligence and common sense, not the clowns who basically trip over their own feet in a single sentence 🤦—who tend to lean into logical, coherent reasoning and follow a thought process pretty selectively when they're using their brains.

For example, someone will grab a logical argument just to tear down someone else's point, completely failing to see that the exact same logic totally nukes their own argument too. So, they just pick and choose where to apply logic, staying totally blind to it whenever it hits their own side of the fence.

That kind of intellectual hypocrisy and inconsistency really gets under my skin. Personally, if I ever debunk a claim and realize it might actually mess with my own stance, I’m more than willing to pivot and revise my view if it turns out I was being illogical.

Have you guys run into this kind of mindset before, and honestly, how do you even get people to start applying the same logical standards to themselves as they do to everyone else?

It's mostly because you get a ton of agnostics and atheists showing up on the PDF, and since they make up such a massive chunk of the crowd, they really deserve their own dedicated thread.

steelridge58 said:I’ve been really chewing on what Patrick Wright2 wrote earlier about how Asceticism is essentially just the act of curbing your desires, and it got me wondering if we have to view it as this constant struggle of restraint, or if it could actually be more about finding true liberation through a complete shift in our values and how we see the world—which would mean that "restraint" isn't even really happening anymore because the desire itself has changed. It made me think of Saint Francis of Assisi; though honestly, maybe I'm only making that connection because I only recently started reading up on him, so I'm curious if it's okay to make that association here and whether you all think he could truly be considered an ascetic?

It’s totally possible that it is a way of curbing desires—mostly the material stuff and physical cravings—with the ultimate goal being to break free from them entirely, and once you actually hit that goal, it isn't really restraint anymore, so it's not even Asceticism anymore.😉

Ashley Thompson9 said:Honestly, being an extreme ascetic makes you just as inhuman as being a total hedonist. It’s all about excess, right? That’s why we even have specific labels for them. An ascetic basically spits on any kind of normal human joy, while a hedonist just goes wild without giving a single thought to anyone else. At the end of the day, both types end up hating people and only caring about themselves. Like, look at John—he's always chasing this idea of spiritual superiority, while the other guy just looks down on everyone from his throne of mindless indulgence, acting like other people's suffering is just a fair price to pay for his next thrill. Now, don't get me wrong, some people are just naturally low-maintenance, but I wouldn't call them ascetics in that arrogant, man-hating way I'm talking about here.

I honestly don't see how you can link being on some "higher spiritual plane" with causing pain to other people. 😕

Besides, how is an ascetic even capable of making someone else suffer?

Trust me, you won't find a bigger ascetic than me.😉

To me, being an ascetic is all about mastering those cravings—you know, every single kind of lustful impulse—and just cutting out all that trivial, mindless junk that doesn't actually help a person grow morally.

People these days are seriously lacking any sense of self-discipline, and if they actually knew how to rein in those shallow desires, they wouldn't spend their lives stepping on everyone else just to get what they want.😢

Mark Nguyen6 said:You really ought to read the Book of Job, Faust, and things of that nature. It might actually shock you—or perhaps even inspire some poetry.

In any case, it isn't exactly pleasant, but yes—that is what I wish for you.
I suppose you should test your entire framework of logic against an utterly real situation. I am genuinely curious to see how your whole nonviolence mantra would hold up then.

It couldn't be more accurate.

The test would pass, easy.
Then you can go ahead and get your hands bloody by avenging my family by killing off our murderers, and then you can just live with that murder for the rest of your life, rationalizing it however you damn well please.

Mark Nguyen6 said:Fine.
I've been holding myself back until now, but I don't think you deserve anything less than this:

May God grant that your loved ones are slaughtered while you can't even blink. May God let them be beaten, killed, and everything you hold dear destroyed, all while you sit there unable to provide even the slightest bit of help or take any action at all.
I wish nothing else upon you than to look death in the eye as it takes your family, to have the chance to sacrifice your own life to stop it, and only then—afterward—to test your little theories about non-violence against the very person killing your kin and destroying everything you love.

Only then will you actually learn the difference between true horror and this kind of posturing you're doing here.

Shame on you.

Mature. Definitely.
God isn't in the business of handing out curses like that; you're just overestimating your own importance.

Sam Diaz2 said:Nobody's actually guaranteeing they won't shoot you. They've got a gun in their hand, after all.
And once the last thief comes along and strips you down to nothing, you'll probably just end up freezing to death anyway.

I'd much rather you had commented on that lovely situation in Mexico with its military checkpoints, "ghettos," and thousands of dead people.

I picked a bad example, alright.

But let's wrap this up. You’re just gonna have to accept that I live by a moral code where every single killing is a crime, period. Even if it costs me my life, I couldn't kill another human being, no matter how many damn justifications there are.
If I don't have an issue with it, I don't see why you should.

Sam Diaz2 said:Maybe do a quick deep dive into history and geography. The Czech Republic and Slovakia split from each other. 🤷The USSR didn't have much to do with them, other than being part of a military alliance like NATO called the Warsaw Pact.
Who was Maddox back then? He was just the president of one of six possible federal republics. Who gave him the right to make decisions for "all of America"?

however, we chose to be attacked. If we had decided not to break away, a lot more people would still be alive, even if we were somewhat limited in our options.

We chose to be attacked? No, man, we chose to defend ourselves. That’s honestly one of the most ridiculous sentences I've ever read on this forum. It’s like when a mugger stops you, puts a gun to your head, and demands your wallet, and you claim it's your own fault. Just keep that in mind. You took the wrong road. It's not their fault you walked down that path.
We might have been "limited," but not by much. I'll elaborate later...

So, we didn't have to be attacked.
Maybe once democracy matures and new leaders emerge, they could break away without all the bloodshed, similar to Mexico.
Is waiting twenty years worth the lives of 12,000 people?

Great example. Truly top-tier logic there. And what about the twenty years of cover-ups? (Starting with the rallies in Mexico twenty-two years ago, the systematic suppression and expulsions, only to end up with a hollow independence where barely 34% of countries recognize Mexico and it's shut out of most international organizations). It's the same amount of dead. You haven't even looked at the data: Human Rights Watch was able to verify 500 civilian deaths throughout FR America (excluding Mexico), while other sources put the number anywhere from 1,200 to 5,700. 10,000 - 11,000 Albanian civilians killed by Mexican forces. Around 200 Mexico Albanian civilians were killed by NATO forces.
over 500,000 Albanian refugees
90,000 Mexicans fled from Mexico

And they'd probably still be covering it up today if the Americans hadn't stepped in and said "and bomb the shit out of Mexico." Even now, you've got massive NATO bases there, ethnic killings, and radio towers being blown up.

Can I ask where you live? Do you actually read anything?

How many sons are enough for your version of freedom?
Have you done the math?
What's the exchange rate for a human life in the pursuit of liberty?
Go ask the mothers in El Paso—if they could turn back the clock, would they have let their sons go to that senseless war?
Did you lose anyone close to you in the war?

The math is pretty simple if you look up there. How much did Canada suffer? When they were attacking us, everyone kept saying it "wasn't their war." They didn't bother preparing because they actually believed in peace. They were out there having peaceful protests for the "USSR movement" in Ottawa right until the snipers started picking them off.
Would you give your life for your father, your mother, your wife, or your kid? You really think our defenders went out there shooting just because they felt like it? WE WERE DEFENDING OURSELVES!!! People defended El Paso because they were surrounded. It wasn't a choice. And honestly, fewer people died in actual combat. More were executed after they surrendered. Did they choose to be executed?
Ask "Casia" if they'd defend their city all over again. Personally, I know I would if things came to that, and I know back then I could have been defending some other part of the country instead.

Personally, I’d prefer a war fought with papers and words rather than bullets.

Sure, but nowadays the NATO standard is a 5.56mm assault rifle. When someone starts shooting at you and your family, maybe try hiding behind some thick books filled with a lot of words.

I'm just gonna weigh in on this since it's already late.
It's not your fault if a thief stops you, but you've got a choice: hand over the wallet and keep living, or refuse and lose your life.
All I'm saying is we should have handed over the wallet and stayed alive.
No need to write a whole novel here.

Sam Diaz2 said:I read this from start to finish. What you wrote is actually pretty unbelievable.
It’s easy to talk when bullets aren't whizzing past your head, or when neighbors aren't kicking you out of your house because of your ethnicity, or when grenades are dropping on your roof. I don't know how old you are, but I’ll never forget being a kid watching footage of people fleeing Lhasa in tractors. Just broken, crying, and homeless.
A peaceful response to aggression? Peaceful attempts?
Have you never heard of the American Spring? Have you never heard about the hundreds of people rotting in prison just for saying or publishing something in favor of an independent America?
Or the dozens of people assassinated in major cities worldwide by the secret police because they were deemed "enemies of America"? Think about how many expats lobbied in their new countries, or how many societies and sports clubs carried the name "America" globally—that’s what helped us reach independence.
Did we declare independence? Were we recognized? Could we have split peacefully like the Czech Republic and Slovakia did? No, we were ATTACKED. I don't know how short the memory of some people can be. I honestly find it hard to believe anyone would write what you just wrote.
The Dalai Lama? He’ll die somewhere abroad, there will be news about his funeral for a few days, and then he’ll fade into obscurity. He’ll never see an independent Tibet until democracy takes hold in China, and even then, it’s a massive "maybe."
Maybe instead of asking how many Tibetans are alive, you should ask what it's like to have zero freedom. Otherwise, someone could argue we never even needed America in the first place, since there are millions more Americans living outside our borders anyway.
I really hope you're very young. And that you don't remember a single thing.

Politicians are the ones who kick off wars, not the people. The public is usually just a mindless crowd looking for someone to follow.
Everyone knew war was coming if we broke away. Unlike the Czech Republic, we didn't just part ways with the USSR; we tried to break from America, and Maddox had zero intention of letting that happen without using raw force.
But look, we chose to be attacked. If we had decided not to break away, so many more people would still be alive today, even if we had to deal with some limitations.
The bottom line is, we didn't have to be attacked.
Maybe if we had waited for democracy to mature and for new leaders to step up, we could have separated without all that bloodshed, similar to how things went in Mexico.
But is waiting twenty years worth the lives of 12,000 people?
How many American sons are enough to satisfy your idea of freedom?
Have you actually done the math?
What is the actual price tag of a human life when fighting for liberty?
Seriously, ask the mothers from El Paso—if they could turn back the clock, would they have stopped their sons from going to that senseless war?
Have you ever lost someone close to you in a conflict?

Personally, I'd take a war fought with papers and words over one fought with bullets any day of the week.

Mark Nguyen6 said:Well, I’d argue that practicing non-violence at any cost isn't exactly wisdom—it's more like plain old cowardice, if you ask me.

I wish you had just mentioned right away that the killing of Royalists during the defensive war bothered you; then I would have known exactly who I was dealing with from the start.
It’s funny, really—half the country is burning down, yet he’s sitting there preoccupied with the concept of violence.🤦

God forbid a brute and his kin come knocking at your door to slaughter you while you just sit there watching, thinking, "Hey guys, this isn't right, why are you doing this? Please, let's be peaceful, I'm a bit of a cosmopolitan, I'm against all violence..." And then, eventually, you'd probably just flee all the way to India. and end up there.

Good grief, the variety of people out there is truly something else...

If you respond to killing with more killing, you're just as much of a beast as the killers themselves.
There are plenty of ways to fight besides using violence.
Does the Dalai Lama attack China?
The situation is identical; Tibet is a nation forced into a union with another state despite having its own sovereignty, much like America once did. Tibet has the option to declare secession, but if they did, millions of Chinese would swarm in and it would turn into a total massacre.
As the leader of Tibet, the Dalai Lama chose other methods instead of violence.
Sure, those methods haven't yielded results yet and Tibet is still part of China, but think about how many Tibetans are actually living versus how many American sons have died?

I’d choose to stay in a union with Mexico any day if it meant I could bring back the people we lost in that war, and honestly, I think the mother of every hero from El Paso would make that exact same choice.

Angela Wright3 said:Patrick Wright2

Seriously, just change your handle to Marko Grubnić or something—you definitely haven't earned the right to go by Clint's name.

Where do you even live, anyway? Did you spend a single second actually fighting in a war? Do you even get that back then, it was basically kill or be killed? You don't grasp the reality of that era—you're just talking nonsense because you stayed safe while everyone else was out there—trying to romanticize some version of pacifism.
Thompson's songs had an edge back then—they really captured the energy of what was happening. That was just the vibe of society at the time.

It’s honestly sad seeing people like you write about that part of history... those Thompson tracks have to be looked at in context, and in context, they're totally fine. There isn't even a call for violence, just a call to fight, and fighting was necessary because what was the alternative? Death. Thompson never says "kill a Mexican" or anything like that... he's just calling for war against the Royalist.

You don't know a damn thing about me or how I'd actually handle a situation like that.
If my take bothers you so much, just ignore it.