> ... and find their more-reasoned arguments refreshing, you're right back at... emotionally attractive rather than rationally considered.

How do you figure?

▲

mindslight 2 days ago | parent [-]

Just because someone can find or create lengthy logical rationalizations does not mean they're arriving at universal truths.

Gödel's first theorem says that a logical system can either be incomplete or contradictory. The comprehensiveness of natural language (our primary tool for communicating), especially with the prevailing over-reliance on Boolean logic, points to the results from our use of them being readily contradictory.

So with Internet forums (especially when you're first exposed to them), you switch from getting half-baked reasoning in meatspace interactions (the focus of this article, and easy to spot!) to long chains of fully-baked reasoning that are logically consistent. But yet they ultimately still lead to some pretty terrible places - due to what they've left out of their starting assumptions, and then tacitly reject by closed-world-optimizing for the assumptions they did make.

	▲	cowboylowrez 17 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The contradictions probably should generate political compromises. I mean it would be sort of ridiculous to say "Godel, so lets be a failed state!" I would also not buy blaming the ridiculousness of the USA's state of affairs on Godel either, as I don't see any attempt from the powers in charge to lean toward "fully-baked reasoning", in fact they are whackadoodles from the best I can tell lol Some folks talk like the lowest of the lowlife trolling forum goers are even remotely approaching logically consistent philosophical systems that eventually run into eventual and inevitable paradoxes, and I don't buy it. Heck, we should be that lucky to have forums like that instead of rabid identity wars. Have you ever chatted with a libertarian for instance? In english? Half your terms need to receive new definitions lol