View Single Post
Old April 11th, 2009 #128
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,046

Originally Posted by Larry Heinberg View Post
No it isn't.

Do you know what the odds are of a randomly selected black man being a criminal?
More than one in three.

How many people know this, do you think?
Here? Everyone.
Elsewhere? Not that many.

An argument either supports its conclusion, or it doesn't. An invalid argument does not support its conclusion.
Indeed and...?
His argument was invalid.
I don't see anything invalid about it, I have already reconstructed the argument and I don't see the invalidity in it. It doesn't give a false conclusion if the premises are true so I have absolutely no idea how you derived it's invalid. Perhaps fanciful thinking?

Like I said it's a reasonable conclusion so I don't really understand how you're applying validity to rationality, can you enlighten me?

It did not support its conclusion. Stop pretending that it did. It's getting pathetic.
It's getting pathetic that you are claiming that it's invalid when you never proved it to be so. I have asked you for analysis many times and all I have gotten is a counter example which I myself reconstructed and said that it's reasonable but weak (At least my version).

Screw this. I'm not coming back. What a waste of time.
Wow I don't think id see the day when id hear this from you. But you know I am just giving out what you like to give out