Humans were drinking alcohol five-thousand years ago, and we're still drinking it now. Alcohol is humanity's friend. Can I abandon a friend?
Why not, all your other friends abandonned you?
Worst LoGH quote.
It's an obviously fallacious argument of nature. That it fascinates people and that some really believe it really baffles me.
(...or argument of tradition.)
Friendship is overrated.
Nigga nobody takes it fucking seriously besides your autistic ass. It's a likable quote because it characterizes Yang "the Pussy Wizard" Wenli.
Ya dense fuck.
Humans were watching anime fifty years ago, and we're still watching it now. Anime is humanity's friend. Can I abandon a friend?
Humans were posting on 4chan five years ago, and we're still posting in it now. 4chan is humanity's friend. Can I abandon a friend?
It is fallacious alright. But it's a great argument nonetheless. Remember, it's not who is the most logically strict who wins the argument but the one with more charisma, humor and better sounding arguments and faggots who can only spout "muh fallacy" are neither.
> tfw if I don't drink I can't enjoy most anime but when I do it it's the most enjoyable thing ever
> Remember, it's not who is the most logically strict who wins the argument
In the short run, maybe, but if you want to leave a lasting impression, one that can transcend the ages, you'll have to use proper logic.
Furthermore, what's an argument about? Is it about winning? Or is it about seeking truth?
You won't get nearer to the truth if you're being super charming.
Winning is the only thing that matters in the world. And you can't handle the truth.
Why was this guy so moe?
He was like that autistic girl from GuP who never spoke til the end.
>being this retarded over a quote that's suppose to be tongue-in-cheek
How fucking autistic are you, you fucking fedora wearing faggot.
> ages, you'll have to use proper logic.
Bullshit, people with the biggest historical influence are men of charisma and mass following due to good sounding arguments not people of science or logic.
> Furthermore, what's an argument about? Is it about winning?
Yes that's exactly what an argument is all about. Don't let Plato trick you.
>science and logic has less historical influence than people with charisma
What kind of "historical influence"? The most impactful events of the modern age have all been decided by technology.
The scientific method or the fridge alone had more influence on the world than any great monarch, than any great conqueror, than any great super-charming speaker there was.
You're looking at this from a way too narrow perspective, only regarding very short periods of time that don't matter much on the scale of all of human history.
>Don't let Plato trick you.
Don't let the sophists fool you.
He was just making a silly statement.
>age have all been decided by technology.
Not really, technology can be lost and recovered like it has happened many times in history. And the factor that causes those loses or recoveries are mostly political and cultural in nature.
Also modern technology wouldn't be possible if there wasn't from the beginning people of power and money who invested in it's development.
True. Retards become presidents, geniuses work in laboratories.
>lost and recovered
nigga this isn't wh40k
Guys I got an idea hear me out
took off your fedoras
put em on the door knob
right over there
take your autism meds
and what if
we talked about LOGH
> man is the measure of all things
The sophists are best philosophers.
Plato a shit.
> took off your fedoras
So, now this applies to anyone who talk about things you don't want to talk about?
Not even ironically. Get out.
Do you suffer from an ASD or is it just the first day since you've learnt a new term?
No it applies to people who are behaving in a senselessly autistic fashion about trivial bullshit.
There was already a prototype of a steam engine in ancient Rome. It was lost and the technology recovered in like 1500 years later.
>Also modern technology wouldn't be possible if there wasn't from the beginning people of power and money who invested in it's development.
There has always been autonomous, incremental development not made by people of power or money. Power and money just speed things up, but without logic, you would never have modern technology or even somewhat advanced technology at all in the first place.
Charm isn't going to help you figuring out how ironworks work or how you can build that huge windmill.
So, people having fun?
>Using the term Fedora
Don't throw that shit culture here.
The only thing Plato did was teach Aristotle, which is fucking huge because he was the first real scientist, but Platos ideas themselves aren't really all that great.
This argument is about the following:
Which had more historical influence? Logic or charisma?
Depending on the answer, to influence events, some people might strive to get better at one of those, which can be quite a demanding task, especially if you want to master it, in which case it might be a task for a lifetime.
It can be important.
>There has always been autonomous, incremental development not made by people of power or money
If, with technology you mean bones and sticks, yes.
But real, historically changing technology like aqueducts, weapons, building technology, farming technology were always funded by rulers of the people.
Yeah, but he also installed the "argue for the truth" bullshit. Meanwhile he himself was fallacious as fuck. I respect his maieutics because they are a great very sneaky way to argue, but that's all.
> but Platos ideas themselves aren't really all that great.
Plato is a master of thought experiments and thereby intuitions.
The Symposion and Plato's Cave alone feature such striking and influential ideas, you gotta be kidding me.
>farming technology were always funded by rulers of the people.
Funded, but that's it. It's other people who then did the actual, the important work: The development. It's not like you can just literally "stumble upon technologies", as if it was laying on the ground.
Hey, fuck all of you badmouthing Wenli.
Being one of the most powerful strategist in the universe gives you the right to drink whenever you want.
But you see, the scientists need the rulers to exist. But the rulers don't need scientists to exist.
Scientist without ruler: a pleb farmer with a hobby.
Ruler without scientist: a ruler.
Who do you think has more possibilities to make into the history books?
Yes, and intuitions come mostly from prejudice. He was a master of handling prejudice to win the argument.
also he was married and have children
The plebeian farmer with a hobby, of course, because if he invents something fulfilling people's needs, it's going to spread virulently, regardless of the existance of a ruler. Why? Because people are always going to go to some extra lengths to keep warm, to have a full belly and to be secure.
There doesn't need to be a ruler as a funder.
> of course, because if he invents something fulfilling people's needs
That doesn't make him not an important person for the logic side, because besides that, he also wrote many passages about logic, despite never leaving behind a fully codified system of logic.
This logic made Aristotle what he was, albeit he disagreed with him on a lot.
Wow, this is Braunswauchtasdfsd's execution right? I just watched this 10 minutes ago, already forgot the name of the fucker. It is a pretty good series, and I like alcohol, so nice thread OP.
Now to leave before some faggot spoils me.
The wheel, the horseshoe, rice plantation, the spinning wheel, MILK POWDER, linoleum and more.
Not this guy, but there are no real historical examples of a farmer inventing something important because farming in the past was a full time job. But I highly doubt iron smelting was financed by the elite, it was probably figured out by multiple rich alchemists and then spread everywhere else.
You also have to remember that the rich are more likely to show off the technology one of their men found so they can flaunt how superior and forward thinking they are compared to all the rest of the rich and powerful. So it will get murky on this subject, but its very probably a lot of important technology was made by the wealthy but not noble citizen as they were the only ones that would have the free time for research.
> The wheel, the horseshoe, rice plantation, the spinning wheel
And who invented those things? We are talking about history here not about prehistory.
> milk powder
> not funded by the elite
Good job, you managed to point out one of the wrong things he wrote, ignoring the other examples.
Way to look like an angry teenager.
>multiple RICH alchemists
By definition they would be a part of a elite, even if not noble.
I just ignored linoleum because I didn't know what it was. Are you talking about that example?
In any case, pointing out what's wrong with the contrary arguments is what an argument is all about. I can't understand your butthurt.
He completly disproved the arguement the elite was the ones who made the inventions, and instead of accepting that, you nitpick on the one flaw.
Thats what bothers me, you are no longer argumenting, you are grasping at straws.
>independently invented by a cook
>then picked up by the military and poor people
B-but the rich invented it!
You know what? It doesn't even matter, because the argument isn't about funds vs. logic, but charisma vs. logic, and obviously even for an inventor or scientist from the elite it would be more important to have the capability to use logic than charisma, because as a rich person, he won't have to use charisma to fund his stuff in the first place. Because he already has money by his birthright (in the case of nobles).
But without logic? Yeah, have fun never inventing something.
It's also a problematic to argue by differentiating rich from poor people here, because people can transcend classes. As a thinker from the lower classes, if you're good, you'll be able to become wealthy, but that wouldn't make such a person's accomplishement an accomplishement of the rich, because we're focusing on where people started.
Lastly, you wouldn't even have to become rich per se to gain the ability to have access to resources or machines. Guild members in the medieval period certainly were not as super rich as the nobles, but I'm pretty sure that some blacksmith guilds invented lots of ironworking techniques or tools (for example, for easier farming) without having had a request from nobles.
I hope Zvevda do an episode on alcohol and how disgusting it is.
>Humans were marrying at 12 from twenty-thousand years ago to 200 years ago, and we're aren't doing it now.
what went right?
> the argument isn't about funds vs. logic, but charisma vs. logic
But my argument is that charisma gives power and power money and money and power the capacity to change history.
That's not right in the case of birthrights, because you don't have to have charisma then to use the money you already possess.
You might then say: "But one of that person's ancestors must've had charisma to gain power, to gain money, to gain birthrights."
But if none of that person's ancestors had charisma to gain birthrights for that person, just someone else would've gotten the birthrights and thereby the ability to fund things.
Yeah, it wouldn't be you who funds or invents things then, but someone else, but things would still be invented, right?
If you took away the charisma of all people on the Earth, people would still invent things.
If you would take away all the logic of people on the Earth, people wouldn't be able to invent things, no matter how much charisma there is left.
I sense frustration.
Yes. I stopped drinking alcohol totally after getting to know poppy. Morphine is the most cruel mistress there is, but also the most beautiful and fulfilling. No idea why would anyone drink when she exists...