Auntie Oedipus (@Parasite@kolektiva.social):

One of the most toxic elements of democracy brain is viewing 51% as victory and 49% as defeat.

  • Prunebutt@slrpnk.netOP
    61·
    12 days ago

    who likely have an undeveloped prefrontal cortex.

    Wow, better not let those subhumans have any say in how things are run. /s

    • Gresham's Law@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      14·
      12 days ago

      “We are all slave of our own making; some choose to do something about it, while others don’t!” Someone must have said it

      Now regarding the dumb argument you provided:
      Ad hominem (Latin for ‘to the person’), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments that are fallacious. Often nowadays this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than the substance of the argument itself.

      Circular reasoning is a type of logical fallacy where an argument uses a conclusion as a premise, essentially repeating oneself instead of providing evidence or logical reasoning. It’s a self-referential argument that assumes the truth of the conclusion, making it a flawed and unconvincing argument.

      My references:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

      • Prunebutt@slrpnk.netOP
        52·
        12 days ago

        Jessie, what the fuck are you talking about.jpeg

        Seriously, please read up what those logical fallacies are, because neither applies here.

        To clarify my previous comment: I’m strongly opposed to the notion you implied that some people are “too stupid for democracy”. This line of thought has an incredibly problematic (among others: racist) history.

        For example, IQ tests were used to “scientifically” claim that black people where intellectually “inferior”. This is how they justified them being slaves or not allowed to vote.

        Fundamentally, it is a eugenicist talking point.

        And since you like to throw technical dialectics terms around: You should know that I was simply using reductio ad absurdum, a valid form of an argument. (You know how to search wikipedia)

        • Gresham's Law@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          12·
          12 days ago

          Your capital on hyperbole is misplaced, hun.
          That’s not going to make the argument dissociative with your logical trauma & tantrums, not against me anyway.

          I don’t know about you, but I still have some self-worth left. Now, if you don’t mind, I’m blocking you. Your are wasting my time & energy.