View Single Post
Old April 2nd, 2009 #49
Larry Heinberg
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 615
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by psychologicalshock View Post
Chimps are dangerous animals and thus humans must take care when handling them. Not all chimps will rip off your face, but enough will that you need to stay cautious.
That's not the reasoning I was talking about. I don't think that argument has even been used in this thread.

Quote:
I missed your analysis of the logical validity of the argument , was there any?
"One group being more dangerous than another doesn't mean that either group should be described as "dangerous", or that only one should be described as dangerous. Perhaps one should, perhaps both, perhaps neither. The mere presence of a difference in dangerousness doesn't allow you to reach any of those conclusions."


The original quote I replied to:
Quote:
if you know that black males are disrpoportionately resposnsible for violent crimes, such as muggings, or rapes 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 a coon is following you, then you SHOULD indeed you MUST assume based on his GROUP that he presents a serious potential threat.
It amounts to saying: "There is a difference between two groups in dangerousness, therefore you should perform X behaviour in the presence of one group, but not in the presence of the other group".

That is invalid.


So, I didn't say which conclusion was correct, did I?