Originally Posted by Larry Heinberg
"if you know that adult women are disrpoportionately resposnsible for violent crimes [compared to infants], such as assault against white women, which they provably and statistically most certainly are-- then if you are a white woman walking down the street at night and an adult woman is following you, then you SHOULD indeed you MUST assume based on her GROUP that she presents a serious potential threat".
Well now that I have begun studying first order logic rigorously it has become obvious why this methodology is bunk. Replacing premises to test the validity of a conclusion is a laughable method and while it looks alright on the surface it holds no water at all. Most arguments can be falsified by changing the premises of an argument and thus the truth value of it in a particular world. Validity is not tested by changing the premises around but by actual rigorous analysis of the argument. That is to say if you agree on the premises and the argument is valid (which it is) then it is fine. Larry is typically Jewishly arguing form which in itself is not a determinant of logical validity considering that it cannot be the case that if the premises are true and the conclusion is true that it is anything but true. Falsifying by a change of premises makes absolutely no human sense.
(But it might make Jewish sense)
That is to say as expected comparing women with children has nothing to do with the original argument which is based on a human assessment of negroids. I can easily disagree with Larry's argument and agree with the original one committing no logical fallacies whatsoever because it is my reason that is telling me how the world is. That is to say the argument of unsoundness is one that is not accepted, sorry Larry better luck next time my Yiddish pal.
This simply shows the typical Jewish methodology of Jews such as Larry. I am quite content knowing that I was right all along but more so content that I now understand the logical reasons for why that is so.