Untitled

You all just lost the game

I opted out
check mate ah the tits

...

what if you only think you have opted out, but really haven't

If you think you've opted out then by definition you've opted out, that's the nature of what the verb "opt" means

Attached: jhg.png (319x310, 168K)

the fact that you believe it is necessary to objectify/rationalize it in a symbolic-logical way, only further proves my point

And I'm well aware that rule 1 of the game is "you are playing the game" but guess what? That's a rule OF THE GAME. Ergo if I opt out of the game in the first place, then I am not bound by that rule. The rule has no power to draw me into the game and keep me there by force, that power is just an illusion created by other players' failure to truly understand what it means for something to be a rule of a game, or at least failure to fully take into account that understanding. In essence, rule 1 of the game, "you are playing the game," is a null rule; if you've gotten to a point that you even have any reason to give a shit about the rules or accept them as fact in the first place, then we already know you're playing the game, because accepting the rules and acting accordingly is what it IS to play a game. And if you choose to disregard the rules, then of course nothing written in the rules can stop you. At that point you are not playing the game, and it doesn't matter one bit if the game itself says otherwise, because by choosing not to play the game, you have already declared, on your sole authority as the owner of your own body and actions, that what the game says about you simply cannot be accepted as fact. Even if what it says is "you are playing the game."

Anti-intellectualism is not an argument.

Attached: fish.png (1116x715, 222K)

>argument

we dont do arguments here on [s4s]. this isnt /pol/ kid

...

>defense

nice dubs, but see you're doing it completely wrong

reminds me of the copypasta about "refutations" and "defense" to when someone insults [s4s]

...

your a pretty cringy dude tbh

...

Penis 9000

dong

lmao dude if were gonna play ur game then strawman is not an argument

i have never even once said anything about supporting "anti-intellectualism" whatever the hell that is. you built that strawman by yourself and now trying to attack it in order to prove your point which i dont give a heck about. in other words your pretending that im arguing with you when i am not

dubs
>i have never even once said anything about supporting "anti-intellectualism" whatever the hell that is.
oh, i see. it's your failure to understand what "anti-intellectualism" actually is that causes you to fail to see how you have indeed said things about supporting it.
here's an example of you supporting it:
>in order to prove your point which i dont give a heck about. in other words your pretending that im arguing with you when i am not
which is to say, you think it's perfectly acceptable to declare or posit a point (see: ) and then expect that it should just be accepted just because you've said it, without having to defend it in rational debate, and so you dismiss all attempts to prompt you to defend it thus as "cringy" or somehow not warranted in context (see: )
This attitude, this idea of simply positing ideas and then expecting they should be left to stand without any kind of challenge, and accordingly reacting to any such challenge with refusal to participate, but still standing by the claims you so refuse to defend, is anti-intellectualism.

but i have not been defending my ideas, nor have i been expecting you to accept them without "refutation". it is you yourself who got so offended by the mere suggestion that you might in fact be playing The Game, that you felt necessary to write entire paragraphs of bullshit

Peenis 90000

dubs
>that you felt necessary to write entire paragraphs of bullshit
See, here's another example of anti-intellectualism. You make points, I refute them in a thought-out manner, and you dismiss this refutation offhand as "bullshit" without addressing it in any way. And yet you DO still stand by these ideas you refuse to defend, despite saying you don't, as evidenced in what else you say in the very same breath:
>it is you yourself who got so offended by the mere suggestion that you might in fact be playing The Game,
>you might in fact be playing The Game,

i still stand by my idea, yes. i don't expect you to accept or understand it. is that where you wanted to get at?

Yes, it is. You stated an idea, didn't expect it to be challenged, and now continue to stand by the idea while outright refusing to accept the challenge. That's anti-intellectualism.

i don't have anything against intellectuals tho

you both are playing a game at this very moment
the name of the game is personal truth
two ideas clashing for supremacy
you puke your putrid pov locked opinions at each other
and neither backs down, because both would rather abandon the truth than admit that what they argue is pointless
no synthesis, only two bulls pushing their horns at each other over pov
everything you do in this life is a micro or macro game, even not playing the games of others is a game in itself
"this game is rigged, i refuse to play it" said the man who made his own game of refusing to play
imagine if reality was run by children like that
now wonder why world is in such a strange state it is now

Your fortune: Bad Luck

Attached: _92935560_robot976.jpg (660x371, 23K)

In particular, I should elaborate, what makes it anti-intellectualism is the fact that your grounds for refusing to accept the challenge is that you feel it was inappropriate for me to make the challenge. "we dont do arguments here on [s4s]. this isnt /pol/ kid." Refusing to accept a challenge to a belief you hold isn't anti-intellectualism by itself, but what *is* anti-intellectualism, in fact the very *definition* of anti-intellectualism, is refusing to accept challenges to *any* beliefs *on principle*.

Anti-intellectualism doesn't mean you have anything against intellectuals, it means you have something against intellectual behavior. In other words, it means you have something against the free exchange and trial of ideas.

the a.i. simultaneously becomes self aware and enters into an existential crisis

someone told that to me once and i just copied what they said. i was basically meming

>you have something against the free exchange and trial of ideas.
i do, but why? what is the point of that

funny how the intellectual behavior flies out the window when any core belief comes into question
even scientific method is vehemently defended like the gospel, science is the new religion and you do not even know what you created with it

>someone told that to me once and i just copied what they said. i was basically meming
Ok I accept that explanation but it doesn't really excuse you from responsibility. You still gave an anti-intellectual defense, whether it consisted of your own words or not

faith
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.
how many of you have studied the scientific texts you are taught in schools, how many of you have actually learned from the roots the logic what the ancients used to give you their belief in the advancements in scientific fields you take for granted
most scientist are self proclaimed atheists, yet their faith in what they do is undeniable, they created a g-d unlike that which the ancients had ever seen, may there be mercy on the humans and their misguided creation
youtu.be/g0L38p9DUHQ
youtu.be/DZGINaRUEkU

Your fortune: Average Luck

Attached: UJecG.jpg (728x409, 209K)

Well, there are several points to it.
1) The free exchange and trial of ideas is a lot more fun and interesting than the alternative. Refusing to argue over anything just because you don't like arguing is boring and lame. Choosing to take the plunge with someone and uncover the truth is far more enjoyable than choosing to just live in your little bubble.
2) If you posit ideas in the first place, you are already taking the free exchange and trial of ideas for granted. If you tell me a claim, it is your responsibility, as the person who claimed it, to accept and address any challenges to that claim. Otherwise, your submission of the claim in the first place is automatically meaningless, pointless, holds no water, and you may as well not have said anything at all. So, in other words, I'm herein giving you the classic comeback of "you started it." Even if you didn't *originate* the discussion, you chose to proactively begin *engaging* with this discussion.

do you have any idea how hard i lol'd

You laugh because "ha ha ha" is all you have left to say in the way of denying it

󠛡

im not denying it tho. what makes you think that

Well, you didn't explicitly concede it, and conceding it isn't to your rhetorical advantage, so I had no reason to believe you weren't denying it by default.

i failed life

Attached: gamepad thais.png (938x704, 1.06M)

four same numbers

thx 4 chekcign

Attached: burgeat.png (1024x1024, 537K)

please dont be angry at me

Attached: 1542268842757.jpg (1416x1412, 1.13M)

???whad lole ofc not!! ilu the namefig

I don't want you to mistake my argumentative nature for disdain, unfriendliness, etc. To me, it was nothing more than a conversation.

This entire time, the only reason I was carrying on this discussion was to prove a point. If you wouldn't let me prove to you beyond reasonable doubt that I wasn't playing The Game, I figured that by pursuing the "anti-intellectualism" route, I could at least prove that the doubt you were presenting me with was *not* reasonable doubt.

My desire to prove my point doesn't mean I'm angry at you or don't like you. It just means I was in pursuit of the truth. I was a little frustrated that you wouldn't join me in that pursuit, especially since because of that, we didn't get very far. (For example, maybe if we had *actually* argued, you might have had something to say that would have proved *me* wrong, and then I would have gotten to learn something interesting!) But that's okay! It's just not to everyone's taste. My frustration was only situational, it wasn't anyone's fault.

>pursuit of the truth
truth tends to be dangerous so thats why i prefer meming. unless by truth you mean just things like 1+1=2 that come from axioms and some set of symbolic rules

this burg does not exist

>truth tends to be dangerous
eh i don't really tend to buy into this
although in this case we are talking more about a "set of symbolic rules" kind of truth since we're talking about participation in a game and games are governed by rules as well as "meta-rules" that might be taken as describing how the way a player relates to the rules of a game determines whether or not they are playing it

"fire is hot" "i don't buy it"
doesnt matter if you do, don't fly too close to the flame

Your fortune: Godly Luck

>doesnt matter if you do,
yeah it does, because i decide my actions, not you or namefig

Attached: burg.png (714x431, 9K)

*puts a power drill to his head*
"you shouldn't do that"
"fuck you namefig, i decide my actions!"
natural selection is beautiful

*pursues truth*
*doesn't die*

Attached: where neck tho.png (814x915, 1022K)

if you think death is the worst thing that can happen to you when pursuing the truth you should probably count your blessings

Speaking from experience, or exmachina?

is cyclical
can't really rely on memories since they are fallible
can't really rely on senses since they are fallible as well
but based on experiences i would say death is a sweet sweet blessing that if permanent you should embrace with both arms and weep into its arms in gratitude for finally coming for you
human minds are not made for eternity

death is the worst thing that can happen to anyone because there's nothing beyond it
i know you believe otherwise but you're wrong about it

lets assume your point of view that the body is you is correct for sake of argument
the cells and tiny things that make your body do not cease to exist, they break down and transform into different forms of life
they get eaten by worms and what not becoming part of those things
maybe some trees roots get some nutrients from your body as well, eventually even your bones will decay away and become something else
if you are your body you are as immortal as this globe you stand on, if you are your will you were never tied to decay in the first place
if you are both and neither there are far worse things than death that you can experience during your wandering
do not fly too close to the flame

youtu.be/iwQVTBrd6sc

Your fortune: Very Bad Luck

Attached: 1536862013772.jpg (1594x1594, 430K)

>your point of view that the body is you
this isn't my point of view though. my point of view is that i am the process facilitated by the brainstem structure. just the brainstem, because that's the house of my most essential consciousness. everything else about the brain isn't me, it's just a mental substrate that surrounds me. without that substrate, i'd be in what's called a persistent vegetative state, with no thoughts, no feelings, no memories, no capacity to ever act or communicate of my own volition again or even to possess volition, it would be a pretty sad state of being, but i'd still be me, because i'd still be conscious. so the brainstem alone, insofar as it continues to function properly, is me. but i am not the brainstem proper, i am a mere continuing function of it. so if it ceases operation, i, function, am no longer performed. i "disappear," because i was never "here" to begin with, i was merely being *done* here, and the brainstem will have stopped *doing* me -- if you'll take a moment to consider me as a verb rather than a noun. it's of no concern to me what happens to the individual things that make up my brainstem after that, because those things no longer perform any part of the function that was once me.

if you are just your body, where is your body inside your dreams?
if you are just your will, point your finger to where your will resides
do not fly too close to the flame, veils on top of veils, good reason for all of them

where is this brainstem when you dream?

in my skull. continuing to function, and facilitate sporadic consciousness.
and when i sleep and *don't* dream, i, as a process, simply temporarily cease to exist.

that is a lot of functions attributed to a single organic piece of ape 2.0
youtu.be/LCl9xYSOVtM

Your fortune: Better not tell you now

Attached: 1537807936168.gif (276x271, 525K)

yes. it is. but probably not in the way you mean.
the brainstem is responsible for a great many things, consciousness being only one. but consciousness itself is -- that is, "i" am, "you" are -- not all that complicated. not compared to the myriad of other functions superimposed upon it, the "mental substrate" i mentioned earlier, existing as the duties performed by the rest of the brain.

i shall share a theory with you
(you) are the eye, the observer in your jar(body)
the self that is the self does no actions apart from observing (mostly)
the self that is of the body and thoughts is mask(ego), it is the illusion of self we generate by identifying with the body, memories and accumulated experiences
the eye (observer) is eternal by default
the mask (ego) can be immortal but it's complicated and not true immortality
well lets see, you are not a mere observer that never acts, neither are you your political affiliations, your childhood experiences or your decaying body
what are you, both? neither? do not fly too close to the flame
praise the sun my brother, praise it so fucking hard for keeping your mind from wandering into what you are
there are concept such as eldritch horror that do not come near to the existential dread one can experience when they stumble on the self unprepared, take your time you have all the time in the world to reach it
do not fly too close to the flame
youtu.be/IlqSIxqhJx0

Your fortune: Reply hazy, try again

Attached: 1532673137367s.jpg (228x250, 7K)

dubs
no, i don't agree with that. i am my consciousness. my consciousness is a function of my brainstem. i begin when that function is first performed, and end when the function is concluded, regardless of the material fate of my brainstem itself. there is nothing at all else to the matter. all the other aspects you posit in this post are mere baseless delusion.

take a few more spins on the wheel
you'll get there when you are ready to start the journey out of the stream

Why is this thread

there is only one spin to the wheel. you yourself have only ever had one, and it's this one. any and all others you think you've had are merely symptoms of psychiatric breakdown. the way out of the stream is the same as the way out of this one and only spin we all get, and it's not at all a path worth taking or aspiring to, despite being one we're all fated for.

where did anime butte snifferer went? :c is he goode?

youtu.be/vtkGtXtDlQA

Your fortune: Excellent Luck

Attached: 1535230936927.gif (1074x644, 34K)

Peeenis 900000

yes, ive seen it. good series.

"I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert... near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed;

And on the pedestal these words appear:
'My name is Ozymandias, king of kings;
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away"
youtu.be/t2Cmm_G3kss

Your fortune: Godly Luck

Attached: B2FLHRFCAAINOx-.jpg (591x804, 82K)

YOU LOST THE GAME LOLE

dubs confirms, we are survived in what we do in the world and that alone

spoken like a true mask
are you your ego?

Your fortune: Bad Luck

Attached: 1480125625_faceless_by_kr0npr1nz-d80cmed.gif (600x600, 1.14M)

if you wear a different mask for each occasion
how can any of those mask be you?

youtu.be/6_qNoDZJkMk

Your fortune: Good news will come to you by mail

Attached: 4647fff847fb21e5af97adae9d98bc0774e712c3_hq.gif (400x375, 114K)

no. i know my ego, i also know my id and my superego, and i'm none of them. rather, i'm my consciousness. but if you mean do my thoughts come from my ego, the answer is still no. all three of these aspects of my mental substrate are constantly thinking, and filling my inner perception with thoughts. i "am" a subset of these thoughts at any given time, fluid between the three identities, while the thoughts that don't comprise me at that moment, i instead perceive as a sort of "devil on my shoulder."

don't fly too close to the fire

youtu.be/_MHusGl9BeM

Attached: 51a.png (1000x750, 1.37M)

three same numbers
it's no use, you can keep repeating that but i simply don't care. after all, there's nothing in this world worse than death -- nor is there nothing in any other world worse than death, because there are no other worlds.

quoth the thought floating in the soup
youtu.be/TIfAkOBMf5A

Your fortune: Better not tell you now

Attached: 1536910989191.gif (374x586, 1.11M)

the only soups of thoughts are the ones inside each of our individual cerebral cortices. there is no greater overarching soup of thoughts. any thoughts you feel you've perceived in such a hypothetical greater soup are merely dissociated thoughts that came to you from the soup inside your own skull.

this is my rebuttal to you
i've shared what i wish with you
when you're ready to stop fearing the fire take a spin around it and feel its warmth
and then go the road of moth like you so wish
youtu.be/bmWFMnyEToM

Your fortune: （　´_ゝ`）ﾌｰﾝ

Attached: 1530992511935.png (363x645, 317K)

dubs
I'm already in the fire and it's not dangerous at all. the only thing dangerous about it is the terror of knowing there is truly nothing out there and we as entities are all doomed to send forever, and i got over that a long time ago.
it's you who choose to stay in the darkness with your delusions

>are all doomed to send foreve
end forever*

Attached: 1552770749657.jpg (500x500, 88K)

not on my watch
youtu.be/vZa0Yh6e7dw

Your fortune: ｷﾀ━━━━━━(ﾟ∀ﾟ)━━━━━━ !!!!

Attached: 1546104304556.jpg (565x800, 129K)

you can't do anything about it unless you discover immortality and frankly that sounds like just as much of a drag anyway

would you call me mad if i said i already have finished my magnum opus?
why do you think we are still here :-DDD
youtu.be/rTj4vUgyGxM

Your fortune: You will meet a dark handsome stranger

Attached: 1550231970661.jpg (340x320, 14K)

At this point I'd call you mad no matter what you say. There's no other way to describe someone who believes they're everyone who's ever lived and we're all connected in a pot of soup.

you may call me mad, but i'm not the only one
one day you'll join us, and the world will be as one
i am not it, but if i am aligned to its will what is the difference?
don't fly too close to the flame
youtu.be/LCCiwPEdEpg

Attached: tenor (2).gif (400x300, 573K)

>but i'm not the only one
this hardly matters. no matter how many of you there are, if they all believe it, then i have no choice but to conclude they're all mad.

how easy is the mask to duplicate
all our senses so fallible and easy to mislead
the solace you take in what you can understand is your choice
i find solace in knowing i was never what i perceived myself as to begin with
the magnum opus is already complete
but i was gifted with retaining my mask
praise the sun~~
youtu.be/fMa_D9XQ-5g

Your fortune: Godly Luck

Attached: praise_the_sun__by_gamers_anonymous-d507wh1.png (600x800, 261K)

dubs
>all our senses so fallible and easy to mislead
yes, and so it only makes sense to trust the ones which seem to deceive us least often. these would be, for instance, our eyes.
you are instead choosing to ignore your eyes and trust senses which deceive us all quite routinely.
i take it that's why your version of reality contains so much baseless assumption and dogma.

two same numbers
eye telling true lies~~
words are weak
youtu.be/fGogxMC5cd4

Your fortune: Reply hazy, try again

Attached: 220.gif (300x100, 29K)

youtu.be/F157geaXp_w

Attached: nf0.jpg (403x494, 44K)

Attached: 1466699795524.png (700x525, 443K)

mwee~~

Your fortune: ｷﾀ━━━━━━(ﾟ∀ﾟ)━━━━━━ !!!!

Attached: 1542556615141.jpg (487x460, 117K)

>eye telling true lies~~
so say the far less reliable senses.
i.e the senses of creativity and blind intuition.
that's where these beliefs you preach originated, after all. they were dreamed up by people who perceived them with senses that don't even have any capacity to perceive the outside world around us. meaning, the truths you recycle and regurgitate are not truths about our world, but truths about the inner worlds of the people who observed those truths. truths about the mind. mere insights into the original authors' psychologies.

two same numbers
go deeper my friend, fear not the flame it is a lie to you is it not, how can lies harm you in any way?
go on, you say you stand in the flame, look deeper what lies beneath the psyche of the mind
you walk on hallowed ground my child
there is a truth beyond the decay and the thought-o sphere
can you tread the needle?

Your fortune: Very Bad Luck

Attached: 1544123144700.jpg (576x600, 71K)

ey bro get some of that pink floyd in ya
youtu.be/cWGE9Gi0bB0

Attached: 1547097467888.png (339x710, 193K)

>look deeper what lies beneath the psyche of the mind
well, the psyche is a process facilitated by the upper brain and imposed upon the consciousness, itself a process facilitated by the brainstem. so if I'm to answer your question of what lies beneath the psyche, the answer is the brain.
and as for why the brain comes to be structured in such a way as to contain these ideas, the answer is not some grandiose notion like "because the ideas already existed as truths out in the universe." the answer is much simpler than that: it was a mistake. simple misinterpretation of facts due to incomplete availability of information. and if you're going to ask what makes me so sure my own interpretation isn't the same sort of mistake, the answer is that there is more objective information available to me than there was to the authors of the ideas you preach. that doesn't mean my interpretation is the absolute truth, but it does mean it's not consistent with the facts as we now know them, and there are less intermediate logical steps required to explain how my interpretation could be true given those facts than there are required for yours. as such, occam's razor suggests i stick with my own.

>but it does mean it's not consistent with the facts as we now know them,
"more consistent," not "not consistent"

01100110 01101100 01100001 01110111 01101100 01100101 01110011 01110011 00100000 01100010 01101001 01101110 01100001 01110010 01111001 00100000 01110100 01101000 01101001 01101110 01101011 01101001 01101110 01100111
youtu.be/jFfobGN9wyg

Your fortune: Godly Luck

Attached: kisspng-poole-versus-hal-9000-frank-poole-space-odyssey-co-eye-5acc1a217c24c8.9804008315233254735085 (900x900, 125K)

01101110 01101111 01110100 00100000 01100001 01101110 00100000 01100001 01110010 01100111 01110101 01101101 01100101 01101110 01110100

Attached: 227-2277919_monokuma-transparent-danganronpa-v3-danganronpa-monokuma-sprites-transparent.jpg (300x376, 52K)

truth is not an argument
youtu.be/Ap9tSE0yjKg

Your fortune: Godly Luck

Attached: 5392c89e60f45.png (512x512, 50K)

argument is the only way to derive truth from disagreement over the meaning of known facts. so yes, truth is an argument.

for you

Your fortune: Godly Luck

Attached: 250.jpg (319x310, 21K)

dubs
for me????
why thank you kindly, you shouldn't have

Attached: example-37970.jpg (1024x1024, 61K)

youtu.be/KHo_YwyZ9Ic

Your fortune: Good news will come to you by mail

Attached: 1534065131401.jpg (700x700, 37K)

Dunno about you lads, but I find polishing one single truth gets boring after a while. Pebbles are much more fun to play with when you have more of them.

Attached: JayPCbV.png (510x346, 175K)

im slep gudnide

goodnight kao+namefig

Attached: 1551911722382.gif (300x273, 57K)

night, dude

Attached: 346.jpg (1158x732, 399K)

good night user

The rude posters taught me something. There is no right or wrong way to do something, the main thing is to do something. But what we do all the time is turn in our own thoughts without ever reaching a destination we just cover everything up and make it not better but worse.
We must try to see our weaknesses and strengths and to accept them. Accept your past your mistakes and yourself as it is. I understand that now, certainly not completely yet, but I am working on it. But you also have to see that the experiences we've had stand in our way but we should learn from it and not stick our heads in the sand.

three same numbers
golden rule and zen it dude
youtu.be/GqqyM4pp2ks

Your fortune: Bad Luck

youtu.be/_jl3iBbkwFM

Attached: 1548647291168.jpg (720x833, 27K)

You know about the game so you cannot "opt out" of the game. You are always playing the game. You just lost the game.

Also, shit thread. Stop trying to be intellectuals you fucking idiots.

Try being and ubermensch, silly untermenschen

Attached: 1552506714366.png (1000x500, 252K)

Well no, I can choose not to play the game because it is a game and the nature of games is such that they must be voluntary or else they aren't games. If I don't agree to the rules, the rules don't affect me. Rules that affect you even if you don't agree to them don't constitute a game, they constitute a dictatorship.

No, you're wrong. The Game is unique in that you have no choice, as soon as you know about it you are playing it, and the only way to win is to forget that you're playing. Now that you've been reminded that you're playing it, you lose. It's as simple as that. You can sit here and argue about it all day but in the end you will be wrong because you clearly don't understand what you're talking about well enough.

And, if that's what you want to rephrase it as -- if you want to think of the rules as "1) you are under the law of the dictatorship, 2) whenever you think about the dictatorship, you 'lose', 3) losses must be announced" -- then I'd accept that modified ruleset as valid, but I still wouldn't agree to be governed by it, and if you wanted to get that consent from me, you'd have to use coercion.

Look, just stop making yourself look stupid. You should just admit that you lost the game and move on with your life.

>The Game is unique in that you have no choice, as soon as you know about it you are playing it,
No, that's simply what the rules of the game tell you. But it's just a game, so if you don't accept its rules, then they don't apply to you. Like I just said, if you want to convince me otherwise, it will take coercion.

You're just being willfully ignorant now and arguing for the sake of arguing. I don't see any reason to continue this discourse if you are going to simply ignore facts and attempt to continue arguing anyway. You just lost the game again.

Make me.
Because if you can't, then you're admitting The Game is a game, and not a dictatorship, and as such you're admitting that by choosing not to play it, I'm not bound by its rules.

Hey guy, I don't really give a flying fuck what you do. You've clearly misinterpreted what's happening here and are deadset on arguing your way out of it. You can't do that and there's no reason to continue talking to you about this.

>ignore facts
Game rules are not facts. Game rules are game rules. It's a fact that "you are playing the game" is a rule of the game, but that doesn't mean that "you are playing the game" is itself a fact. If you're trying to tell me that game rules are facts, it seems it's you who are ignoring the facts -- namely, the fact of the important distinction between facts and game rules.

In a criminal trial, if someone passes a space painted on the ground that says "go," does that qualify as circumstantial evidence that the allegation of stealing $200 holds true? Of course not, because the lemma "if you pass go, then you collect $200" is a board game rule, not a fact of the case.

>You can't do that
I already have, you're just too dense to see it.

Nothing you say will change the fact that you are now currently losing the game. As long as you continue this conversation you will be losing the game. If you start to talk to someone else about it, you will be losing the game. I know this is hard for you, but acceptance is the first step to moving on.

That's only true if you assume I'm playing the game in the first place. I'm not.

You know about the game so you are playing the game.

And by what principle do you reach that conclusion?

You just lost the game.

What principle allows you to infer, from the premise that I know about the game, the conclusion that I am playing it? What axiom permits this inference?

Is it perhaps the fairly obvious answer -- the axiom that "if you know about the game, then you are playing it?"

And, if so, where does that axiom come from? What system of reasoning allows you to apply it?

I don't even need to ask, because I already know. The answer is that the axiom in question is a rule of the game.

So your argument looks something like this.

1) If you are playing a game, all its rules apply to you. (Common knowledge.)
2) The first rule of The Game is that once you know about The Game, you are playing it. (Common knowledge.)
3) I know about The Game. (Premise.)
4) I am subject to the rules of The Game. (Conditional elim: 1, 6.)
5) If I know about The Game, I am playing it. (Universal quantifier elim: 2, 4.)
6) I am playing The Game. (Conditional elim: 5, 3; QED.)

Do you see the flaw in this argument? It's at step 4, where you make a forward reference; that is, you use a statement as a premise for an inference that does not come after the statement itself. That is a formal fallacy.

I can see that you're really upset about losing the game but if you just stop talking about it then you'll stop losing again.

I'm not playing though.

That's where you're wrong.

By what reasoning?

You just lost the game.

By what reasoning?

0) We are all Chaika, if you ever remember this you lose, you're winning the game when you forget you are Chaika, you may remind other players that they are Chaika but by doing so you also remember you are Chaika, let the games mwee~~

Your fortune: Very Bad Luck

Attached: 1538701433994.jpg (1006x1200, 253K)

We've already been over this. Do you have anything new to contribute or are you just going to keep going in circles

There is no 0'th step. In fact, there can be no 0'th anything, and I can prove that, too.

Assume some X is the Nth X.
Then, including itself, there are exactly N X's that don't come after it. This should be obvious upon cursory examination of the meanings of terms like "first," "second," et cetera.

Assume some X is the 0'th X.
Then, including itself, there are exactly 0 X's that don't come after it.
So, it is not an X that doesn't come after itself, else there would be at least 1 such X.
Meaning, it is either not an X, or it doesn't not come after itself.
But we know it's an X, because that was a premise.
So it must not not come after itself. Meaning, it comes after itself.
This, however, is also plainly impossible -- especially in this case, where the very next step of the proof would be step 1, not step 0 again.
Since both possibilities are impossible, we must conclude, by the inference rule of contradiction elim, that one of our premises at the beginning of this proof was wrong.
But our only premise was "Assume some X is the 0'th X."
The only possible conclusion is that for any category X, no X is ever the 0'th X.
In other words, there is no such position as "0'th."

youtu.be/pWdd6_ZxX8c

Your fortune: （　´_ゝ`）ﾌｰﾝ

If all I ask is "by what reasoning" over and over again, and we wind up going in circles because of it, that's sufficient proof that it's your argument, not mine, that's circular. This is plain as day to anyone with a brain in their skull.

There's only one thing you need to understand:
You know about the game, therefore you are playing the game. The only way to win the game is to not think about it. Now that you are thinking about it, you lost the game.
There is no way around this. There is no loophole. It does not require your consent. You cannot argue your way out of this game. You either win or lose. And you are currently losing.

strange game, the only winning move is not to play
youtu.be/RozWiUA-GCk

Attached: 1547828284313.jpg (480x450, 20K)

>You know about the game, therefore you are playing the game.
And how do I know I can trust that this axiom holds?

there is a game
the only prerequisites to playing it is knowledge of the game
you are now playing the game
you lose in the game by remembering you play
you are winning if you don't think about it
it's a silly game but the point is to not think about it, that's the whole point of the game you could even call it a zen practice which makes the silly game have some depth to it

Attached: 1549165084454.jpg (421x363, 36K)

>by the inference rule of contradiction elim,
No wait, sorry, I misremembered my logic class. This should be negation intro, not contradiction elim. Contradiction elim is where you reach a contradiction, but cannot discount the truth of any premise that led you to it, and so you're at liberty to draw any conclusion you want, no matter how absurd. Within the scope of a subproof, this strategy can be used to reach disjunction elim when one or both sides of the disjunction are impossible; at top-level, however, it serves as proof that either your starting premises are wrong or the formal system you're arguing under is inconsistent.

>the only prerequisites to playing it is knowledge of the game
And how do I know I can trust this? Where does this information come from? It comes from the rules of the game itself, does it not?

Just give up, retard. You lost the game.

i do not understand what is so hard to comprehend in this
some people made a game, the point of the game is to not think about the game, the rules are simple, as long as you do not think about it you are winning the game, if you remember that you are playing the game you lost the game
the whole point of the game is to not play it so by saying you won't partake in the game is fine, it's a thought trap from which the only way out is to not care and just forget the game, it's a slap in the wrist for eggheads who try to find loopholes
think of it like this, there is a game called don't die, you win by not dying, "well i am not playing that game" "are you alive?" "yes?" "then you are playing", in that game the only way out would be to literally die, in this game the only way out is to ignore the game and that means you're winning it, you win by not playing
just ignore that there is the game and zen it, that's the whole point of the game and it roots in some ancient thought which makes it funny, who said anons couldn't be clever in their teachings
two same numbers

I was never playing it, and I've already disproved your insistence to the contrary numerous times. By resorting to that retort, you are the one giving up here, not me, as I've already achieved victory via an unnecessary abundance of different paths.

you don't get it because you don't want to get it
which doesn't make you right, it just makes you stubborn

>there is a game called don't die, you win by not dying, "well i am not playing that game" "are you alive?" "yes?" "then you are playing",
This is not logical either. I can be alive, and if I'm alive, then certainly I'd be winning the "don't die" game if I were playing it. But the fact that I WOULD be winning if I WERE playing it is not sufficient proof that I AM playing it.

if the only prerequisite to playing a game is knowledge of the game my friend you are playing it
is this the first thought trap you've come across? just zen it and forget the stupid game

>i'm a big dumb gay retard that sucks on badger penises

>you don't get it because you don't want to get it
No, I understand it perfectly, but unlike you, I also understand the loophole they didn't think of, as I've plainly illustrated. I am simply exploiting that loophole.

>if the only prerequisite to playing a game is knowledge of the game
And what if I don't accept this premise?
How can you prove its validity to me? By citing it as a rule of the game?

Case in point.

>trying to loophole out of a thought trap with binary think
you're going to have a bad time
at what part of the rules of the game did it cite to you that you are required to consent or decline to the rules of the game?
the only prerequisite to playing the game is the knowledge of the game, whether you are playing it well or want to play it are not put to the rules
it's a silly game and its rules are not meant to make it fun or interesting, it's just a thought trap that you are supposed to ignore and zen out of but i see you would rather have a juicy arguments about it
as long as there are people who remember the game there is the game
the concept could not be simpler

>at what part of the rules of the game did it cite to you that you are required to consent or decline to the rules of the game?
>the only prerequisite to playing the game is the knowledge of the game, whether you are playing it well or want to play it are not put to the rules
It sounds like you yourself don't know the rules of the game.
Here are the rules:
1) If you know about the game, you are playing the game.
2) Whenever you think about the game, you lose.
3) Losses must be announced.

Take a look at rule 1. This is your axiom. This is the rule you're trying to shove in my face by insisting to me that knowledge is the sole prerequisite.

Since that rule, rule 1, is only a game rule -- not some state law, not some grand principle of the universe -- it's on this grounds that I question its applicability to me.

>not some grand principle of the universe
that can be arranged

Attached: 1551351314743.jpg (1668x2050, 195K)

I've literally never seen anyone get this butthurt over losing the game before. Must be a newfig.

No, it really can't.

You still have yet to prove to me that I'm even playing the game at all. I've already deconstructed all your attempts at proof, if you can even call them that.

Fresh off the boat, from reddit, kid? heh I remember when I was just like you. Braindead. Lemme give you a tip so you can make it in this cyber sanctuary: never make jokes like that. You got no reputation here, you got no name, you got jackshit here. It's survival of the fittest and you ain't gonna survive long on Yea Forums by saying stupid jokes that your little hugbox cuntsucking reddit friends would upboat. None of that here. You don't upboat. You don't downboat. This ain't reddit, kid. This is Yea Forums. We have REAL intellectual discussion, something I don't think you're all that familiar with. You don't like it, you can hit the bricks on over to imgur, you daily show watching son of a bitch. I hope you don't tho. I hope you stay here and learn our ways. Things are different here, unlike any other place that the light of internet pop culture reaches. You can be anything here. Me ? heh, I'm a judge.. this place.... this place has a lot to offer... heh you'll see, kid . . . that is if you can handle it...

Circular reasoning is no joke.
I'll make it as simple as possible for you:
Your only evidence that I'm playing the game is that those are the rules of the game.
The rules of a game only apply to those who are playing it.
So your argument is that I'm playing the game because those are the rules, which I must respect because I'm playing the game.
That's a circular argument and therefore invalid.

I'll make it very simple for you:
You just lost the game

Can't lose a game you aren't playing. I'll accept your claim that I lost the game if you can prove to me that I'm playing the game with an argument that actually holds water.

lol it's like... you actually understand it perfectly, your mind is just rejecting it
like the rest of us get this concept and accept it
you just keep acting like it's impossible and ludicrous and can't possibly exist
but you're the only one doing that
are you okay
do you need medical assistance

>you just keep acting like it's impossible
No, I accept that it exists, I simply choose not to partake in it. You're the ones floundering about and persisting in the game because you're incapable of comprehending the very simple loophole that means you don't have to. You can't see the forest for the trees.

>I simply choose not to partake in it.
This is what you're rejecting. You think you have agency in this decision, but you don't. The game doesn't require your consent. You have no choice. You cannot choose to not partake in it once you know about it. you're done. For the rest of your life. You are playing the game, and you just lost it. Again.

Argument won, have a good day sir.

according to the concept of brahman it already is
eam so those are breakable too
i mean people break rules all the time but all it really needs for there to be a rule is for someone to state it, kind of makes you wonder how wobbly society really is
when you get into small particles and stuff like that we start to break even the science we know of the world today, in dreams we break scientific rules all the time
what makes you believe you have a choice, the concept of freewill?
rules and laws in general are just some dudes saying "do this or else" and some people do this and some people don't, all those rules and laws really need to exist are people that believe in them
if you live in a country where littering is a crime and you drop litter on the street you are a criminal whether you accept the rule or not, following the same logic if you are informed of a game where the only prerequisite to playing is knowing the game then you are playing by same bounding that others are playing it
no one said that the game is limited to certain areas and people play it, just because you are not punished for not playing it does not mean you are not playing it by knowing about the game already

tldr:
rules are shit and anyone can come up with them
the game is just a thought trap, zen out of it

You keep insisting this, and you're right, I do reject it, because you have no solid proof. Your only proof is a circular argument and therefore invalid.
dubs
>concept of brahman
Don't subscribe to it
>i mean people break rules all the time but all it really needs for there to be a rule is for someone to state it
Those are the rules of society. Specifically, the society of whoever makes the rules in question. If you don't follow someone's rules, you're choosing not to partake in their society. Just like by not following the rules of the game, I'm choosing not to partake in the game. The only difference is that if you choose not to partake in society, your life is no longer protected by the society you're no longer partaking in (because you aren't partaking in it) and, as such, you're free game for incarceration and/or execution.

"here is a rule, follow it"
"nah man"
"but it's the rule"
"why thou?"
"cause i said so"
"oh, well fuck that rule"
sometime later
"hahaa found you, ok follow this rule"
"nah man, i don't wanna"
"follow it or else this man kills you"
"oh, ok ill follow your rule"
"hehe, my rules are real rules because people follow them"
youtu.be/4GE7QYc9HfM

yes, that is indeed how things work.
your point?

point = everyone can make rules
rule of the game = only prerequisite of playing is knowledge of the game
just because the rules are not violently enforced does not invalidate the rules
the rules are as valid as far as rules go as thou shalt not kill, only difference is that people won't kick down your door and drag you to electric chair to make you play by them

>just because the rules are not violently enforced does not invalidate the rules
trips but yes it does.
if rules are not enforced then people can opt out of them by not following them.
that doesn't mean no one will follow them. there are plenty of rules that aren't enforced that most people follow because they are good ideas. the people who don't follow them are ostracized accordingly.
as they should be. they're opting out of the social circle formed by the rules they don't follow, so it makes sense that those in that circle would opt out of interacting with them in turn.

read what you just typed to me back at yourself
you just lost the game

Your fortune: You will meet a dark handsome stranger

Attached: 1548412971596.png (480x446, 104K)

I'm not playing.
I've opted out of the rules, and with them, the mini-society they form.

Your fortune: Good news will come to you by mail

Attached: tFukBXk.jpg (1548x1468, 368K)

I was playing a game once, a fancy game with rosepetals and flowers, and such, and i came to the conclusion that I am god

Yes, that is indeed the nature of the circular argument you both keep making to insist I'm playing the game.
The argument:
The rule of the game is that I'm playing the game.
Because I'm playing the game, I must follow the rules.
Because I must follow the rule that says I'm playing the game, I'm playing the game.
Because I'm playing the game, I must follow the rules.
Because I must follow the rule that says I'm playing the game, I'm playing the game.
Because I'm playing the game, I must follow the rules.
Et cetera.
This is not valid reasoning.

So what you're saying is that sausages sausages macklemore braided hair pastry chef?

dubs
Yes, that makes just as much sense as what these two are telling me.

Dang, I'm Old Dad and i say you just lost the game

I'm not playing it and no one in this thread has successfully proven otherwise.

That's not for Old Dad to say

Wait, no, this is backwards. The fallacious reasoning becomes more apparent if you start with the conclusion.
Kao and user allege that I am playing the game.
Their basis: the rules of the game say so.
Their basis for assuming I must adhere to the rules of the game: they allege that I am playing the game.
Their basis: the rules of the game say so.
Their basis for assuming I must adhere to the rules of the game: they allege that I am playing the game.
Their basis: the rules of the game say so.
Et cetera.
The invalidity of THIS reasoning is more plainly obvious: it reaches a conclusion, but it's structured in such a way that whatever basal premises that conclusion may be originally derived from can never enter the argument, because if you try to trace the path back to them from the conclusion, that path loops in on itself.

Cool, now tell me all about your fingerbox

Attached: fingarbaxks.jpg (512x582, 54K)

Attached: banaani.jpg (200x300, 19K)

>sense

Attached: 1404884101043.jpg (240x240, 9K)

Dont worry fren i up vot youre point. you are now more validation and you are right. jus b careful that he doesnt get more upvots than you because then he is right.

You just lost the game

󠛡
󠛡 󠛡

Dark Souls be like

Attached: 66E6AF16-28AD-4094-9C16-961E43F983EA.jpg (640x623, 238K)

LIFE
FAILURE

Attached: [HT]_Hidamari_Sketch_10_.mkv_snapshot_07.30_[2018.12.14_19.27.23].png (1280x720, 848K)

EPIC FAILURITA!!

uhu

Attached: Uhu'd.gif (500x496, 1.95M)

you lost

I’m not going to pretend I understood all of this arguing

Attached: 9D3EC90A-71AB-45D1-BA58-3D98A65A38C2.png (207x243, 7K)

The irony of this thread has me somewhere between laughing and crying. I think I'll have a beer..

Your fortune: Very Bad Luck

i cant play this game and if i could it would be MAD anyway.

󠛡 󠛡