Logic Bible outdated? Forum

[MysticalWheel]

How is it a troll? A troll starts a commotion and flees, with the intent to watch the havoc that follows from a distance. I was sincere in my original statements and am sincere in their defense.

Spoken like a true troll.

This reminds me of once when I was called a Nazi for claiming that Germany's economy was one of the strongest in the EU.

[Patriot1208]

I wonder if you are purposely missing the point or just aren't as smart as you think you are? The vocabulary isn't tough, it's just that people don't talk that way unless they are trying to be perceived a certain way. You, quite clearly, want to give off this idea that you are more intelligent than others. But talking like that doesn't make people think you are smart, it makes people think you are a fucktard, who isn't smart, but is insecure. And if that is your normal diction, every single person you know fucking hates you.

Let's count the insults, shall we?

1.) Fucktard;
2.) Every single person you know fucking hates you;

What? Only two? I thought I would at least hit 5! You have issues and I would kindly recommend you pursue their resolution before they consume you. My original statements were not intended to be perceived as haughty, and I am not responsible for the psychological deviations of others who seem to invariably see them as such.

Actually, I didn't insult you personally. Your reading comprehension has been quite poor in multiple responses. I said that when you talk like that (which you told us you do) then people will perceive you as being a fucktard. I then said, if you talk in a way that makes people perceive you as a fucktard, they hate you. Simply put, if you want to be taken seriously in any capacity, any profession, and in social situations, you need be able to communicate in a normal manner. Belive me, people at the best companies, law firms, government agencies in the world will want to punch you in the face for talking like that.

EDIT: people who behave that way are often the ones that end up jobless even when they have grades that would suggest they should get hired.

[MysticalWheel]

I never used LGB, and always score -0/-1 on LG. You don't need it. I'm a douche and I'm better than you.

Fixed for what you were actually trying to say.

I guess someone feels threatened by those that seem to be in a position of mental superiority over him or her, and perhaps rightfully so, no? I mean honestly, those that have a 3.7+ GPA and a 172+ score are more likely to eventually parlay their performance into better pay, higher social status, and, in general, access to more of life's "perks" than those without such badges. And as much as class hierarchy is veiled in the US by the tenets of equality and individual determination, it nevertheless exists and determines, for many if not all people, the quality of their relative existence. Hence, it would seem that the lower levels of society's strata do indeed have much to envy, and perhaps resent, from those that are, more or less, above them. The more that this resentment is expressed, however, the more the insecurity and spite of those in inferior positions is revealed and fueled. Given that the present state of the US consists of circumstances in plain contrast to historically prevalent affairs in pre-revolutionary occasions, thus precluding great likelihood for successful uprising against the establishment, this will likely result in only one thing: the continued and heightened misery of the lower classes, who devote so much useless energy, often incredibly subtle, at consciously or subconsciously attacking a system that rules them and will continue to rule them for some time. The verdict? SHUT UP.

It's erudite sociopaths like this guy who do things like take over large investment banking firms and make destructive decisions that cause near-economic meltdown. It's a dangerous combination to have a lack of empathy, high intelligence and a loony personal vendetta like this guy probably has.

I have no idea from where you're drawing these strange conclusions. If you can't "hack" it, try at least to make sense in expressing your frustrations.

[MysticalWheel]

I wonder if you are purposely missing the point or just aren't as smart as you think you are? The vocabulary isn't tough, it's just that people don't talk that way unless they are trying to be perceived a certain way. You, quite clearly, want to give off this idea that you are more intelligent than others. But talking like that doesn't make people think you are smart, it makes people think you are a fucktard, who isn't smart, but is insecure. And if that is your normal diction, every single person you know fucking hates you.

Let's count the insults, shall we?

1.) Fucktard;
2.) Every single person you know fucking hates you;

What? Only two? I thought I would at least hit 5! You have issues and I would kindly recommend you pursue their resolution before they consume you. My original statements were not intended to be perceived as haughty, and I am not responsible for the psychological deviations of others who seem to invariably see them as such.

Actually, I didn't insult you personally. Your reading comprehension has been quite poor in multiple responses. I said that when you talk like that (which you told us you do) then people will perceive you as being a fucktard. I then said, if you talk in a way that makes people perceive you as a fucktard, they hate you. Simply put, if you want to be taken seriously in any capacity, any profession, and in social situations, you need be able to communicate in a normal manner. Belive me, people at the best companies, law firms, government agencies in the world will want to punch you in the face for talking like that.

EDIT: people who behave that way are often the ones that end up jobless even when they have grades that would suggest they should get hired.

I think it was perfectly reasonable for me to view your previous messages as personally derogatory. As to the rest of your argument about "fucktards," I think you have problems with people who express themselves a certain way, which is not uncommon, I guess. I'm not sure what you hope to gain through stating this, however. My argument holds.

[Ragged]

[Skyhook]

And what about those of us who answered the OP's question?

[Kurst]

If a rigid class hierarchy precludes the possibility of social mobility, then social status is fixed at birth. If no member of the lower class can rise into the upper echelons of society, it necessarily follows that no member of the lower class can earn a GPA of 3.7 or an LSAT score of 172, for an individual who has earned these "badges" is, in your own words, "more likely to eventually parlay his performance into better pay and higher social status." If you maintain that no member of the lower class can earn a 3.7 GPA or 172 LSAT score, then your argument retains logical validity. However, if you submit that some members of the lower class can earn the badges requisite to escaping their caste, you undermine your own argument regarding the futility of the lower class's endeavor to reform the system.

You either completely misinterpret the meaning or willfully ignore the plain writing of my original statements. Show me where I have stated that the possibility for social mobility is precluded? If you are deriving this from my statement that a subtle class hierarchy in the United States determines for many, if not all people, the quality of their relative existence, then you have made a fatally incorrect inference. Merely because something determines something else, to a large extent, does not signify that a possibility in the contrast has been precluded.

I took no position regarding the existence of a rigid class hierarchy, but instead used such a hierarchy as a device to illustrate how your argument contradicts itself, whether the hierarchy exists or does not exist. Your original argument strongly suggested that a rigid class hierarchy exists, and went on to lament its oppressive effect on the lower classes, as well as the futility of their efforts to escape their plight. Since you have effectively admitted that a rigid class hierarchy does not exist, and that members of the lower class can rise into the upper class, your original argument is substantially repudiated. Is it too far a stretch of the imagination to see that former members of the lower class, now members of the ruling elite, will reform the system to reduce its inequities?

[MysticalWheel]

If a rigid class hierarchy precludes the possibility of social mobility, then social status is fixed at birth. If no member of the lower class can rise into the upper echelons of society, it necessarily follows that no member of the lower class can earn a GPA of 3.7 or an LSAT score of 172, for an individual who has earned these "badges" is, in your own words, "more likely to eventually parlay his performance into better pay and higher social status." If you maintain that no member of the lower class can earn a 3.7 GPA or 172 LSAT score, then your argument retains logical validity. However, if you submit that some members of the lower class can earn the badges requisite to escaping their caste, you undermine your own argument regarding the futility of the lower class's endeavor to reform the system.

You either completely misinterpret the meaning or willfully ignore the plain writing of my original statements. Show me where I have stated that the possibility for social mobility is precluded? If you are deriving this from my statement that a subtle class hierarchy in the United States determines for many, if not all people, the quality of their relative existence, then you have made a fatally incorrect inference. Merely because something determines something else, to a large extent, does not signify that a possibility in the contrast has been precluded.

I took no position regarding the existence of a rigid class hierarchy, but instead used such a hierarchy as a device to illustrate how your argument contradicts itself, whether the hierarchy exists or does not exist. Your original argument strongly suggested that a rigid class hierarchy exists, and went on to lament its oppressive effect on the lower classes, as well as the futility of their efforts to escape their plight. Since you have effectively admitted that a rigid class hierarchy does not exist, and that members of the lower class can rise into the upper class, your original argument is substantially repudiated. Is it too far a stretch of the imagination to see that former members of the lower class, now members of the ruling elite, will reform the system to reduce its inequities?

You most certainly did take a position regarding a rigid class hierarchy, as evidenced by your inclusion of said hierarchy in the if/then statement you presented in previous correspondence. But that aside, my argument has no internal contradiction, and I will show you why you are at fault for claiming so.

My original argument predicated existence of a hierarchy, true, but there are several problems with your characterization of my reasoning beyond this point. Firstly, my argument does not “lament” any oppressive effects on the lower classes of society; it does not even state that oppressive effects exist by mere virtue of the hierarchy itself. Rather, the “oppressive” effects arise when the lower classes waste their own resources in criticizing or combating a system that is highly unlikely to be removed from power, when they could instead be using those same resources to climb ahead in the system, and secure for themselves that which they consciously or subconsciously envy. Therefore, my statements do not at all imply any preclusion of overcoming the general resultants of the existing class hierarchy.

In essence, you have formulated an if/then statement in your previous correspondence that you assume to be true. But most fatally, its application to my actual argument has not been demonstrated whatsoever. You are more or less arguing with yourself here about something that you seem to have conjured from reading my original statements, but that does not in fact exist within them. Therefore, your rebuttal is effectively neutralized, and my original argument holds.

[KevinP]

If a rigid class hierarchy precludes the possibility of social mobility, then social status is fixed at birth. If no member of the lower class can rise into the upper echelons of society, it necessarily follows that no member of the lower class can earn a GPA of 3.7 or an LSAT score of 172, for an individual who has earned these "badges" is, in your own words, "more likely to eventually parlay his performance into better pay and higher social status." If you maintain that no member of the lower class can earn a 3.7 GPA or 172 LSAT score, then your argument retains logical validity. However, if you submit that some members of the lower class can earn the badges requisite to escaping their caste, you undermine your own argument regarding the futility of the lower class's endeavor to reform the system.

You either completely misinterpret the meaning or willfully ignore the plain writing of my original statements. Show me where I have stated that the possibility for social mobility is precluded? If you are deriving this from my statement that a subtle class hierarchy in the United States determines for many, if not all people, the quality of their relative existence, then you have made a fatally incorrect inference. Merely because something determines something else, to a large extent, does not signify that a possibility in the contrast has been precluded.

I took no position regarding the existence of a rigid class hierarchy, but instead used such a hierarchy as a device to illustrate how your argument contradicts itself, whether the hierarchy exists or does not exist. Your original argument strongly suggested that a rigid class hierarchy exists, and went on to lament its oppressive effect on the lower classes, as well as the futility of their efforts to escape their plight. Since you have effectively admitted that a rigid class hierarchy does not exist, and that members of the lower class can rise into the upper class, your original argument is substantially repudiated. Is it too far a stretch of the imagination to see that former members of the lower class, now members of the ruling elite, will reform the system to reduce its inequities?

You most certainly did take a position regarding a rigid class hierarchy, as evidenced by your inclusion of said hierarchy in the if/then statement you presented in previous correspondence. But that aside, my argument has no internal contradiction, and I will show you why you are at fault for claiming so.

My original argument predicated existence of a hierarchy, true, but there are several problems with your characterization of my reasoning beyond this point. Firstly, my argument does not “lament” any oppressive effects on the lower classes of society; it does not even state that oppressive effects exist by mere virtue of the hierarchy itself. Rather, the “oppressive” effects arise when the lower classes waste their own resources in criticizing or combating a system that is highly unlikely to be removed from power, when they could instead be using those same resources to climb ahead in the system, and secure for themselves that which they consciously or subconsciously envy. Therefore, my statements do not at all imply any preclusion of overcoming the general resultants of the existing class hierarchy.

In essence, you have formulated an if/then statement in your previous correspondence that you assume to be true. But most fatally, its application to my actual argument has not been demonstrated whatsoever. You are more or less arguing with yourself here about something that you seem to have conjured from reading my original statements, but that does not in fact exist within them. Therefore, your rebuttal is effectively neutralized, and my original argument holds.

[MysticalWheel]

You either completely misinterpret the meaning or willfully ignore the plain writing of my original statements. Show me where I have stated that the possibility for social mobility is precluded? If you are deriving this from my statement that a subtle class hierarchy in the United States determines for many, if not all people, the quality of their relative existence, then you have made a fatally incorrect inference. Merely because something determines something else, to a large extent, does not signify that a possibility in the contrast has been precluded.

I took no position regarding the existence of a rigid class hierarchy, but instead used such a hierarchy as a device to illustrate how your argument contradicts itself, whether the hierarchy exists or does not exist. Your original argument strongly suggested that a rigid class hierarchy exists, and went on to lament its oppressive effect on the lower classes, as well as the futility of their efforts to escape their plight. Since you have effectively admitted that a rigid class hierarchy does not exist, and that members of the lower class can rise into the upper class, your original argument is substantially repudiated. Is it too far a stretch of the imagination to see that former members of the lower class, now members of the ruling elite, will reform the system to reduce its inequities?

You most certainly did take a position regarding a rigid class hierarchy, as evidenced by your inclusion of said hierarchy in the if/then statement you presented in previous correspondence. But that aside, my argument has no internal contradiction, and I will show you why you are at fault for claiming so.

My original argument predicated existence of a hierarchy, true, but there are several problems with your characterization of my reasoning beyond this point. Firstly, my argument does not “lament” any oppressive effects on the lower classes of society; it does not even state that oppressive effects exist by mere virtue of the hierarchy itself. Rather, the “oppressive” effects arise when the lower classes waste their own resources in criticizing or combating a system that is highly unlikely to be removed from power, when they could instead be using those same resources to climb ahead in the system, and secure for themselves that which they consciously or subconsciously envy. Therefore, my statements do not at all imply any preclusion of overcoming the general resultants of the existing class hierarchy.

In essence, you have formulated an if/then statement in your previous correspondence that you assume to be true. But most fatally, its application to my actual argument has not been demonstrated whatsoever. You are more or less arguing with yourself here about something that you seem to have conjured from reading my original statements, but that does not in fact exist within them. Therefore, your rebuttal is effectively neutralized, and my original argument holds.

Vielen Dank!

[Kurst]

my statements do not at all imply any preclusion of overcoming the general resultants of the existing class hierarchy.

Wonderful. What, then, is your argument? You have conceded that a rigid class hierarchy does not exist, and that the lower classes can rise into the upper echelons of society and reform the system. What remains of your argument?

Those that have a 3.7+ GPA and a 172+ score are more likely to eventually parlay their performance into better pay, higher social status, and, in general, access to more of life's "perks" than those without such badges. And as much as class hierarchy is veiled in the US by the tenets of equality and individual determination, it nevertheless exists and determines, for many if not all people, the quality of their relative existence. Hence, it would seem that the lower levels of society's strata do indeed have much to envy, and perhaps resent, from those that are, more or less, above them. The more that this resentment is expressed, however, the more the insecurity and spite of those in inferior positions is revealed and fueled. Given that the present state of the US consists of circumstances in plain contrast to historically prevalent affairs in pre-revolutionary occasions, thus precluding great likelihood for successful uprising against the establishment, this will likely result in only one thing: the continued and heightened misery of the lower classes, who devote so much useless energy, often incredibly subtle, at consciously or subconsciously attacking a system that rules them and will continue to rule them for some time.

[PDaddy]

I never used LGB, and always score -0/-1 on LG. You don't need it. I'm a douche and I'm better than you.

Fixed for what you were actually trying to say.

I guess someone feels threatened by those that seem to be in a position of mental superiority over him or her, and perhaps rightfully so, no? I mean honestly, those that have a 3.7+ GPA and a 172+ score are more likely to eventually parlay their performance into better pay, higher social status, and, in general, access to more of life's "perks" than those without such badges. And as much as class hierarchy is veiled in the US by the tenets of equality and individual determination, it nevertheless exists and determines, for many if not all people, the quality of their relative existence. Hence, it would seem that the lower levels of society's strata do indeed have much to envy, and perhaps resent, from those that are, more or less, above them. The more that this resentment is expressed, however, the more the insecurity and spite of those in inferior positions is revealed and fueled. Given that the present state of the US consists of circumstances in plain contrast to historically prevalent affairs in pre-revolutionary occasions, thus precluding great likelihood for successful uprising against the establishment, this will likely result in only one thing: the continued and heightened misery of the lower classes, who devote so much useless energy, often incredibly subtle, at consciously or subconsciously attacking a system that rules them and will continue to rule them for some time. The verdict? SHUT UP.

This is really stupid. There are too many people on this sight "site" who justify their own insecurity with rants like this. These are not the words of a confident person. But the words are big, so you're smart, right?

Fixed. But, you are correct!

[MysticalWheel]

my statements do not at all imply any preclusion of overcoming the general resultants of the existing class hierarchy.

Wonderful. What, then, is your argument? You have conceded that a rigid class hierarchy does not exist, and that the lower classes can rise into the upper echelons of society and reform the system. What remains of your argument?

Perhaps if you actually read my argument you can grasp the conclusion, which is quite plain. Your failure to do so confirms for me that you've either misinterpreted or willfully ignored my statements, for what sake I do not know. However, I will repeat this: I never state nor imply that a rigid class hierarchy exists, much less that it exerts "oppression" on the lower classes. Reread my original post- show me where I say "rigid." By the way, how's your RC these days?

MW

[MysticalWheel]

This is really stupid. There are too many people on this sight "site" who justify their own insecurity with rants like this. These are not the words of a confident person. But the words are big, so you're smart, right?

Fixed. But, you are correct!

Lol- more insecurity. I wonder if it is all mental or if a southern contingent of physicality plays a role in this.

[MysticalWheel]

my statements do not at all imply any preclusion of overcoming the general resultants of the existing class hierarchy.

Wonderful. What, then, is your argument? You have conceded that a rigid class hierarchy does not exist, and that the lower classes can rise into the upper echelons of society and reform the system. What remains of your argument?

Oh, and show me again where I conceded that a rigid class hierarchy does not exist. Show me also why this, even if true, is appropriately characterized as a "concession." Once again, you seem to be arguing with yourself about some kind of rigid class hierarchy that I neither mentioned nor implied. Exercises in solipsism are always amusing, but perhaps it is better to conduct them in a setting other than a public forum?

MW

[MysticalWheel]

Ragged, do me a favor, and go back to broadcasting your squawky, snide sasses to everyone who posts anything that even remotely rocks your macho pedestal. Can you imagine the nerve of this guy telling me to stop trolling? Just take a look at some of your own posts.

[Jeffort]

Bejebuz

I'm almost starting to feel sorry for this guy. I don't think he is an intentional troll. All he has done is claim to be superior over most others in various vague ways including basic logical reasoning, argumentation, social science theories, and psychiatry/psychology while demonstrating in each of his posts his lack of basic understanding and skills with those very things. His defense has mainly been writing out vague sentences with semi sophisticated references and vocabulary that contradict his claims. I don't see why somebody would set out to troll like that.

Maybe I read it wrong but it appears that a large proportion of the posts from others do get into analyzing his reasoning, explaining the lack of it in his statements as well as asking him for explanation. Then he sticks to the position that what he says 'is because I say it is' about whatever. Along with that he summarily concludes and gives his reasoning an A+ rock solid grade and again says he provided sufficient proof and good reasoning for his conclusions and doesn't need to provide any more.

My main theory is that he is probably a pretty young guy still in UG (possibly still a Junior) that is from a well off family that while growing up has enjoyed a high standard of living provided to him by his parents and still is, got a nice car paid for by parents while in HS, etc. Basically an arrogant spoiled brat that has been handed lots of things and therefore has a feeling of entitlement/superiority.

Only other option I can think of is that he is a really lame troll. I'm still on the fence though cuz if he is participating on this LSAT board to get help to improve his reasoning skills and increase his LSAT score he probably would not be reasoning like he is and also defending it so strongly.

[TruHoosier]

Do you guys think MysticalWheel woke up in the middle of the night last night, sprung out of bed and thought "OH yeah! I was trolling that thread!"? Then he fired up his computer and responded to about four days' worth of posts.

[kkklick]

I can't believe my comment about not needing the LG bible turned into this. lol I'm sure theres better things to do than fight on a forum against a person you'll never see. But nevertheless carry on.

[dovetail]

my statements do not at all imply any preclusion of overcoming the general resultants of the existing class hierarchy.

Wonderful. What, then, is your argument? You have conceded that a rigid class hierarchy does not exist, and that the lower classes can rise into the upper echelons of society and reform the system. What remains of your argument?

Those that have a 3.7+ GPA and a 172+ score are more likely to eventually parlay their performance into better pay, higher social status, and, in general, access to more of life's "perks" than those without such badges. And as much as class hierarchy is veiled in the US by the tenets of equality and individual determination, it nevertheless exists and determines, for many if not all people, the quality of their relative existence. Hence, it would seem that the lower levels of society's strata do indeed have much to envy, and perhaps resent, from those that are, more or less, above them. The more that this resentment is expressed, however, the more the insecurity and spite of those in inferior positions is revealed and fueled. Given that the present state of the US consists of circumstances in plain contrast to historically prevalent affairs in pre-revolutionary occasions, thus precluding great likelihood for successful uprising against the establishment, this will likely result in only one thing: the continued and heightened misery of the lower classes, who devote so much useless energy, often incredibly subtle, at consciously or subconsciously attacking a system that rules them and will continue to rule them for some time.

I'll go ahead and point out the obvious conclusion of MW's argument:

The verdict? SHUT UP.

He was never arguing about whether or not a hierarchy exists. He was never arguing about social mobility.

He was arguing this: since the expression of resentment by people who perceive others as displaying superior intelligence is counterproductive (which is to say, it causes only continued and heightened misery for the complainers), they should just quit expressing this resentment.

If you are going to attempt to argue against his reasoning, here are some options:

Show that he relies on an improper assumption that "if an action is likely to cause only a negative result for the person doing the action, then it should be stopped."

OR

Show that this expression of resentment has another unconsidered effect besides the one likely negative outcome of continued/heightened misery.

OR

Show that this expression of resentment is not likely to result in the aforementioned continued/heightened misery.

Or... you could sit back and realize that, even though it is entirely possible to show flaws in MW's argument, it was a really funny way to tell people to Shut Up.

[Gemini]

I can't believe my comment about not needing the LG bible turned into this. lol I'm sure theres better things to do than fight on a forum against a person you'll never see. But nevertheless carry on.

Yes haha. This is amazing.

Liking or not liking the LGB doesn't preclude or exclude intelligence. So MW's retarded argument came out of nowhere and is nonsensical.

You know what made me laugh? This:

historically prevalent affairs in pre-revolutionary occasions

Haha, SERIOUSLY? Do you have nothing better to do? Who says that? I don't think I'd find this shit in a JOURNAL.

[TruHoosier]

This is really stupid. There are too many people on this sight "site" who justify their own insecurity with rants like this. These are not the words of a confident person. But the words are big, so you're smart, right?

Fixed. But, you are correct!

Lol- more insecurity. I wonder if it is all mental or if a southern contingent of physicality plays a role in this.

You gotta give him credit though. This was a really funny way of telling someone they have a small penis.

[Gemini]

This is really stupid. There are too many people on this sight "site" who justify their own insecurity with rants like this. These are not the words of a confident person. But the words are big, so you're smart, right?

Fixed. But, you are correct!

Lol- more insecurity. I wonder if it is all mental or if a southern contingent of physicality plays a role in this.

You gotta give him credit though. This was a really funny way of telling someone they have a small penis.

Yes, his penis comment was definitely funny. But why does everything have to relate to insecurity? Just because we don't like your douchery, doesn't mean we're all insecure, okay?

[granato]

So...about that LRB? I just bought a copy before reading this thread. I just pissed away 50 bucks if it will only have me -2ing on late 90's tests.

[dovetail]

So, you purposely confused what I said or you just aren't able to differentiate between common vocabulary? Also, if you thought it was well thought out and hilarious, you are a fucking moron.

To be fair, that poster already admitted his/her mistake:

Yowza! I stand guilty of conflating your position on this matter with others who took issue with his use of "big" words. Apologies for that.

Missed this, but i'm not sure if this is meant as sarcasm as not. If it is serious, I stand apologetic for that.

It was a serious apology. But I still think MW's original post was funny, friend. See, the humor comes from the fact that MW wrote a huge polemic against people calling kkklick a douche involving reasoning extending to an enormous scope over history and sociology before ending it with a succinct and abrupt conclusion for some people on a message board to "shut up."