Immaculate a Textual Representation of Logical Arguments 2015

Epistemic Status

I wrote this in a retarded non-obvious way after huffing too many paint fumes or something, please don't judge me as being ordinarily this pretentious if this is your first exposure to my writing.

Immaculate is based on a tree structure in which each node is a single dimensional vector of logical points that lead towards a conclusion. Each point may itself be such a vector. Each point may reference other points in the tree as support for itself. References are like file paths but descending the tree of points. STarting from a number representing the index point of the root vector you may use a dot to then specify the index point of a point in a vector stored at the first index point. You may descend down the tree this way indefinitely.

Each point is prepended with its path.

In display representation the vector is displayed vertically with the first logical point at the top. For each node in the vector an indent is made and then put before each point in the vector. The final point in the vector is unindented so that it is a part of the parent vector visually.

1.1 1.2 1.3


1.4.3 1.5 1.6



Each vector is by default hidden with a square that has the southeast corner white tipped and when clicked the northeast corner is white tipped. In this way you can read the overview of the argument and click in for parts that do not agree with your intuition/that you need clarification on.

Example argument:

1.1: Intuition seems obvious from the inside.

1.2: Intuition makes it hard to emphasize with disagreeing intuition.

1.3: People who disagree with your intuition seem dumb.

1.4: The most controversial political arguments are those which are ambiguous.

  1.5.1: This is because obvious things are easy to decide on.

  1.5.2: Ambiguous hard problems require the most intuition to settle on quickly.
  1.5.3: People will think others are dumb for disagreeing on the easiest problems to disagree on.

1.5.4: Unpacking intuition should raise the sanity waterline.

2.1: Platforms such as Twitter and Tumblr put a cap on the quality of thought that can be easily transmitted and make it easy to transmit thought.

  2.2.1: These platforms also disincentivize a focus on history or reflection.
  2.2.2: If the conversation moves quickly and all that matters to discourse is now, you must speak fast to be heard.

2.2.3: Platforms along these lines incentivize speaking fast.

2.3: Speaking fast is best done through intuition.

2.4: These platforms do not reward reflection or unpacking of intuition and reward speaking fast which rewards those with the strongest intuitions on political issues.

2.5: Those with the strongest intuitions on political issues will have the strongest negative feelings towards those who disagree. (1.1-3)

2.6: These platforms encourage people to emulate and become and be the kind of person with the most animosity towards their political opponents.

2.7: These platforms lower the sanity waterline.