Many people don't like being proven wrong. It's almost painful, and this is why so many people get upset...

Many people don't like being proven wrong. It's almost painful, and this is why so many people get upset, especially when they are losing an argument. When writing papers for any discipline and engaging in arguments, how does one best prepare to be proven wrong?

Attached: gadfly.png (246x205, 8K)

>how does one best prepare to be proven wrong?
Get on your knees already faggot

By understanding and accepting that being proven wrong is the point.

It shouldn't be painful, is the thing. If it's painful it's because you had some irrational attachment at play.

Socrates, ironically, is the best answer to your question. Be humble and coy and undersell every point until it feels right to push

>hey athenians I am just some guy, not really all that wise
>more wise than all of you dumb cunts though
>so yeah if you want to kill me go ahead
>*athenians vote him guilty*
>oh... hehe... eh why not just give me a slap on the hand then? Exile sounds kinda lame, I am old and don't feel like moving. My students can pay you some money if you want.
>*athenians vote to kill him*
>OH WHAT GREAT DISSERVICE YOU HAVE DONE TO YOURSELF FOR GETTING RID OF THE GREAT ME, MY STUDENTS WILL PESTER YOU FOREVER FOR THIS. HAHA I DON'T REALLY CARE ABOUT DYING THOUGH, TAKE THAT!
>*dies*
>Plato: wow I need to write this down

>missing the point
The Apology had Socrates insulting the intelligence of massive groups of Athenians because he thought that they were misguided and that the sophists were controlling reason in an unreasonable way. He probably could have gotten off with being exiled, so he showed that erroneous reason should let him walk away. Socrates wasn't afraid to die, and we know this from the Crito and Phaedo. He just wanted to prove that in a society of the unjust, no one should expect justice. Or at least that is how Plato tells it.

killing him wasn't unjust though because he was an annoying cunt

Do you seriously think being annoying should be punishable by death?

Not unless he's suicidal.

Not him, but sure. Societies are self-regulating organisms. If they do something, it is because they feels it's in their best interest. If whatever they did ends up not being beneficial or in their interests, then they fucked up and it's fault nonetheless.
Socrates death was a tragedy, not because it happened, but because people still haven't learned from it.

no but I do think that if someone is accused of something and if they also happen to be annoying it basically means that most people will have absolutely no mercy towards them
It seems to me like the main reason an innocent person gets punished or a guilty person doesn't is mostly up to the way they act and their personality basically
And I think the reason for this is because people secretly do want to just remove people with bad personalities from society they just can't without a convenient reason based in moral principles first
Humans go to great lengths to subvert their own nature

>how does one best prepare to be proven wrong?
Constant self-reflection and critique. No matter how developed your ideas are they can always be more nuanced. Keep the idea sharp and vital by attacking it.

Attached: 8A879548-6F82-43DF-AA26-95EC9CEF10F1.jpg (933x356, 193K)

Come back after high-school buddy

not only was he annoying but he purposely killed himself to prove some stupid point, all he proved was that people hate annoying cunts, imagine every time you stepped out of your house some fat smelly dude started asking you questions and blocking your path while you were minding your own business

What's the correct response then. I'm genuinely interested. I don't like being wrong or uneducated

>imagine every time you stepped out of your house some fat smelly dude started asking you questions and blocking your path
I wouldn't mind that at all. We don't have such conversations in modern world

You will understand when you're older

Why would I be stepping out of my house at all, or be annoyed that someone wanted to have a dialectical discussion with me? I have no meaningful business anywhere, and if someone wanted to talk about truth I'd be more than happy to oblige

Does it have to do with a belief that all human life is inherently valuable? Or that societies dont exist? I'm 22 and grappling with things I never learned in college. I'm trying to learn as much as I can before I take a cross-country walk

You might learn in the walk

Ok. I have to hope, but this right here is a great example of what happens when dialectical discussion is not used. Socrates would be sad seeing this, and the state of the world at large

Just be right in the first place

I agree. But I have found that discussions with people that don't accept the sacred value of human life will not be able to discuss anything of substance (in my opinion) on the topic of societies. So I prefer to leave them to either come to the conclusions that I have alone or to continue living life as they believe now. I have never had success convincing anyone of the soul and thus do not pursue what I believe to be pointless exercises in argument.

I see. Fair enough, and I value your resolution. Good day to you

I wish you well on your walk brother. I hope you find what you're looking for.

You're correct, but still, 95% of people are so afflicted. It's one of the largest reasons why this world blows ass. You try and help someone and reveal they've been wrong about something, they get shitter shattered and start screeching and carrying on like a monkey throwing shit and double down on their own retardation, then start enshrining their delusions and turning it into a god damned religion. If only you knew how bad things really are.