[MBTI General] ENFPs pwn INTPs

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

It's interesting that you bring this up. I've seen many INTPs do this when debating issues like health care.

Interesting. At some point, unless you're just playing skeptic and smashing arguments, you have to rely on some subjective moral to advocate a position affirmatively. It'd probably help to set out those assumptions off the bat.

 

[SillySapienne]

Oh?

Does 1 + 1 = 2 or does 1 + 1 = 11?

Both true depending on your way of looking at it.

Favorite post of today, thanks.

 

[Grayscale]

11 = 3,4,6,9...

 

[heart]

I think the defensive nature of this thread undermines its own purpose by insinuating that emotion is worse than logic. At least that's what I took from it.

I don't think it is in a Feeler's best interest to try and agrue that they are worthy based on their logic ability.

 

[Kiddo]

Logic is absolute.

It is only as absolute as the person using it.

 

[ygolo]

I am entirely sure that makes sense to you!

Did you not study different bases, Uber?

Though Grayscale was mixing them, I think it made sense to many people on the forum.

 

[Nocapszy]

It is only as absolute as the person using it.

If the person isn't using it properly, then whatever they're doing isn't logical.

Logic isn't affected by people's abuse of it.

It's not something.

 

[Ivy]

ADMIN HAT

Some borderline insulting posts. Let's dial down the rhetoric a tad. Thanks!

/ADMIN HAT

 

[LostInNerSpace]

Very insightful!!!

But secure idiots, so too, can be irrational.

And someone who is temporarily flooded with emotions may also temporarily act/be irrational.

Nobody is completely secure. If someone is ever able to push another person's button to make them angry, they are pushing a self-esteem button. The resulting hostile response is from their ego. You can think of ego as an emotional firewall with offensive capabilities.

Self-esteem is about how we value ourselves. So if I were to say god damn the usKK of A, your ego might just launch cruise missiles at me if america happens to be a part of your identity, and you value yourself as an american.

Not that I would actually say that. It was just for illustrative purposes. Yes, I'm speaking to all you crazy irrational people out there who might be reading this.

 

[Nocapszy]

Yes'm.

I know. I was me.

You forgot the brackets though.

 

[Ivy]

Wutevz. And I didn't single anyone out. And you know I don't shy away from singling out.

 

[Nocapszy]

Wutevz. And I didn't single anyone out. And you know I don't shy away from singling out.

Wutevz also, but I know I was guilty.

Also, I think I did a pretty good job of defending myself.

How come no one else uses my tactic? It ends useless fights real easy.

 

[Ivy]

Wutevz also, but I know I was guilty.

Yes but not only you or I would have addressed you directly. Instead it was more of a general STFU.

 

[Geoff]

Yes but not only you or I would have addressed you directly. Instead it was more of a general STFU.

Bully!

 

[Kiddo]

If the person isn't using it properly, then whatever they're doing isn't logical.

Logic isn't affected by people's abuse of it.

It's not something.

I find it funny that people define logic as "anything but that which is not logical." Which in and of itself is a logical fallacy. Watch I can do it too!

God is anything but that which is not God. Therefore anything people ever discover that argues God doesn't exist is really proof of his existence.

Yay for logical fallacies!

 

[Nocapszy]

I find it funny that people define logic as "anything but that which is not logical." Which in and of itself is a logical fallacy. Watch I can do it too!

That's not the definition of logic. And it's not really a fallacy either.

God is anything but that which is not God. Therefore anything people ever discover that argues God doesn't exist is really proof of his existence.

He exists in imagination, ergo, he exists. Yes. How is that not true?

You simply misunderstand. Those two things only go to prove what isn't logical, or what isn't god. They don't by any means prove that logic or god does exist. At all.

And let's not forget, logic is an abstract process. God is supposed to be concrete, on another plane. There's a difference.

Yay for logical fallacies!

Yeah. Except... oh wait, I already covered it.

 

[The Ü™]

Favorite post of today, thanks.

And I think I will be able to change your views on capital punishment after you read this and this! Think of it as cool and unusual punishment!

 

[Kiddo]

That's not the definition of logic. And it's not really a fallacy either.

A: That was how you were defining it.
B: It is a fallacy.

What is the definition of logic?

Logic: a system of reasoning.

Therefore, I make the argument that a system is only as good as the person who is using it.

 

[Nocapszy]

A: That was how you were defining it.
B: It is a fallacy.

No it isn't. I didn't define logic. I said that there are plenty of things that aren't logical.

And even if it was, the same sentence can't use God, because any kind of proof that god doesn't exist, only means that he can't be searched for there. It does not mean that he exists. It just means he doesn't exist there.

What is the definition of logic?

Logic: a system of reasoning.

Therefore, I make the argument that a system is only as good as the person who is using it.

But it doesn't make sense. The system isn't affected by someone elses abuse. It's not like a gear tract. It's abstract. It can't be damaged.

You're wrong.

 

[CzeCze]

I don't think logica/rationality/emotion have to be separate from one another. Like it's a give and take that the more 'rational' you are the less emotional you have to be. It's such a reductive take on things and sets up an adversarial stance when it comes to your own personal resources -- like there's not enough to go around and something has to give.

I think I'm pretty rational and logical or whatever the adjectives are that describe being able to see things accurately and for what they are and what would naturally follow from Step A to Step B. But regardless of my perception of things, I prefer to live based on my feelings, my intuition, my gut.

I make lots of decisions that one could argue "don't make logical sense" -- but even the most logical and rational person can have their decisions dissected and argued every which way for 'not making sense'. I know that and I don't care. I do what makes me happy. I think everyone wants to be happy in their life, regardless of type.

For some people being the most "logical" or the most "rational" gets them the biggest slice of cake in their eyes and personal satisfaction. For some people, letting their emotions flow freely and even engulf them makes them feel alive and personal satisfaction. Whatever floats your boat.

I think perhaps one reason, as others have already alluded, that ENFP gets a rep for not being as logical or rational (at least on this forum) is simply that most of the ENFP members here don't really care to win any logic contests or need validation from an NT (especially the obnoxious ones) in a 'debate'. At least I don't. In this case I think it's more a matter of not being interested in playing the game rather than being definitively logical or rational.