Project Logic

If you are ever to talk to me, you better know fundamentals of logics: Dome of Logic

~~~~Project Photography.

This project concerns art (he) of photography. It is not for exposure of my best stuff, but for technical information and examples.

Link to other stuff about subj.:Galerija
Yet more stuff about subj.:Galerija1

Link to local photography school:photography

---

Vulgar and S.W.A.T. (Special Weapons and Tactics) discussion tips.

1. Two basic modes of battle are flesh-and-blood and ghost

Flesh-and-blood means you have your own ideas and beliefs. You are expressing them and defending them.
The bad thing is each belief has its flaws. There might be a point which you haven’t really thought through.
If you discuss about questions where thy beliefs differ a lot, you might find yourselves fighting in vain, if your position can’t really judge position of another (and vice versa).
In case of defeat, (a) it hurts; (b) you are just too fanatic to ever listen to another and look more like prophet, which is violation of rules.
The good thing is, there is a passion in heart, thus discussion becomes interesting and people think. One has to think about his own beliefs, or they will just collapse under mistrust.
If it hurts, it means question really matters. Therefore, discussion will (should) improve ones intellectual background of life.

Ghost means you don’t care about subject, even if you do, you don’t show that. In that case, you are simply transparent.
The good thing is that you become invincible (unless you are an idiot). In this mode you either don’t talk at all (boring), or you attack other people positions. Since you don’t show positions of your own, your opponent can only defend himself. Not too interesting.
Bad thing is that you don’t gain all the good stuff from discussions that flesh-and-blood gets.

Ghosts can do evil thing called mirroring. That is, you pretend that you have beliefs and those are the beliefs of your opponent. Thus each and every hit your opponent will make will reflect.

2. Log the discussion.

One thing people hate more that anything else in the world is to admit that they might be wrong. They can accept the idea, but never admit it. I never saw anyone doing so. Question their intellectual abilities, and they will defend themselves even if they act like ghosts.
The usual opponents’ tactic is to simply drop the point in argumentation. This is the minimal damage retreat.
If you want to make this damadge greater, put a simple question at the end of your argumentation “isn’t it so?”, if opponent doesn’t answer, keep asking. To annoy him more, make excuses, like “I need to know if you agree with me here, so I could make my point more clear.”
To avoid such damages yourself, think twice before say anything.

3. If at all possible, avoid any insults.

If you cannot defend yourself at one point or another, never reply simply “blow me bitch”. This means you admit you are fucked like a little bitch. It is easier just to admit that you got this point not quite right. Or you could just think for a moment and gather thy straight.
Do not make insults during discussion. This will lead to temptation to forget all the reasoning and just throw around with words. Why to waist your time with insults if you can hurt them where it rally counts. Nowadays nobody really gives a dam if they are called fuck-faces, or fat-bitches or anything.

4. Obvious is absurd.

Doesn’t work too well, but takes its toll on opponents’ certainty. This one won’t work, but to illustrate:
- “Pope is not Jew”
- “What do you suggest he is then? Christian? Yeah, right”
In such cases you point out that you in fact know the other possibility, but you have found it to be silly. Thus, if your opponent says “Pope is Christian”, he himself says he is silly.

5. Look for hidden premises.

A lot of bullshit hides within hidden premises. Take an example:
-This guy have defective nose, that’s why I hate him.
Or more subtle one:
-This guy have defective nose. God, I hate him.
One just can't conclude such things in classical logic. It means that there is a hidden premise. In this case it is most likely:
-I hate people with defective noses.
You might want to extract more than there is to it, like:
-I hate people with ugly faces.
Please don't do that.

How to irritate people with this?
Whenever someone says something, which includes hidden premises (happens a lot) and it is contradiction (happens) point it out.

Also, you can catch such a hidden premise that isn't too flattering. Later on make an opponent state the opposite. Example:
- Iraqi are sons of bitches and should be shot without a remorse.
- All people have same rights.
- Individuals do not inherit national stereotypes.

And whola, you just gave them enough rope to hang themselves.