Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old April 11th, 2009 #121
Larry Heinberg
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 615
Default

Well then, given your answer, I will have to assume you agree with me. The argument provides no support for its (trivial) conclusion.

I frankly don't understand your talk of "reason" and "reasonable things that aren't logical". What does it mean? And what does that have to do with reaching true conclusions and supporting attitudes? Nothing.

Quote:
You have already said that it is reasonable to say that negroes are in general more dangerous
Was that the point? No. Stop pretending it was.

I do indeed think it is reasonable to "say" so. In that it is technically the case. On its own however, that line is near meaningless.

I would never "say" such a thing without qualification, since most would draw conclusions well beyond the information given.
 
Old April 11th, 2009 #122
psychologicalshock
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Heinberg View Post
Well then, given your answer, I will have to assume you agree with me. The argument provides no support for its (trivial) conclusion.
Actually I disagree I think it's a reasonable conclusion.

Quote:
I frankly don't understand your talk of "reason" and "reasonable things that aren't logical". What does it mean? And what does that have to do with reaching true conclusions and supporting attitudes? Nothing.
It's not a logical conclusion and thus your analysis of it is irrelevant.

I actually think his statement is a great example of how rationality and logic tie in together for a rational statement that is backed by an inductive statement.

Last edited by psychologicalshock; April 11th, 2009 at 12:44 AM.
 
Old April 11th, 2009 #123
Larry Heinberg
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 615
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by psychologicalshock View Post
Actually I disagree I think it's a reasonable conclusion.
Disagree with what? Haha, I never said it wasn't a "reasonable" conclusion. I said his argument provided no support for it.

We've been over this many times. If you won't answer the point, I'll have to assume you now agree with me.

Quote:
Quote:
I frankly don't understand your talk of "reason" and "reasonable things that aren't logical". What does it mean? And what does that have to do with reaching true conclusions and supporting attitudes? Nothing.
It's not a logical conclusion...
Thank you.

Quote:
...and thus your analysis of it is irrelevant.
His argument does not support his conclusion. That is obviously relevant.

Quote:
I actually think his statement is a great example of how rationality and logic tie in together for a rational statement that is backed by an inductive statement.
You must be joking.

His statement provides literally no support for his conclusion. None. Further, his conclusion - true or not - is entirely trivial, because it fails to differentiate between blacks and whites.

What do you think his statement achieved?
 
Old April 11th, 2009 #124
psychologicalshock
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Heinberg View Post


His argument does not support his conclusion. That is obviously relevant.
His argument does support his conclusion, it's a rational conclusion to make.


Quote:
His statement provides literally no support for his conclusion. None.
X is likely to happen.
X is desirable/undesirable.
X must be anticipated.

The argument is reasonable
1.Blacks are likely to commit crime - strong statistic syllogism

2.One wish to live and thus that is believed to be undesirable
Thus if one sees a black following oneself at night it is best to anticipate an attack.

Rational conclusion.

Perfectly reasonable, well supported.
 
Old April 11th, 2009 #125
Larry Heinberg
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 615
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by psychologicalshock View Post
His argument does support his conclusion
No, it doesn't.

Quote:
X is likely to happen.
He never said so.


Yet again, if his argument supports its conclusion, then so does mine about women and infants.

Stop being evasive. And let's move on from this trivial claptrap.
 
Old April 11th, 2009 #126
psychologicalshock
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Heinberg View Post
He never said so.
I don't think you really have to say so since this statistic is literally brought up on a monthly basis and has never been doubted or contradicted. It's a basic fact.

Quote:
Yet again, if his argument supports its conclusion, then so does mine about women and infants.
It would if it was functionally rational but it isn't and I already said that a similar argument of women and dogs is possible but happens to actually be weak because as I mentioned before small chances become statistically insignificant . That is why the argument is one of rationality and invoking absurd counter-arguments doesn't actually work.

Simply put it would be reasonable to say that you should be more wary of women than dogs (Or of than women? I dont know) and men than women but these are much smaller than the original statement thus the original statement is much stronger.

Quote:
Stop being evasive. And let's move on from this trivial claptrap.
To?

Last edited by psychologicalshock; April 11th, 2009 at 02:14 AM.
 
Old April 11th, 2009 #127
Larry Heinberg
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 615
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by psychologicalshock View Post
I don't think you really have to say so since this statistic is literally brought up on a monthly basis and has never been doubted or contradicted. It's a basic fact.
No it isn't.

Do you know what the odds are of a randomly selected black man being a criminal? How many people know this, do you think?

Quote:
It would if it was functionally rational but it isn't and I already said that a similar argument of women and dogs is possible but happens to actually be weak because as I mentioned before small chances become statistically insignificant . That is why the argument is one of rationality and invoking absurd counter-arguments doesn't actually work.
What on earth are you talking about?

An argument either supports its conclusion, or it doesn't. An invalid argument does not support its conclusion. His argument was invalid. It did not support its conclusion. Stop pretending that it did. It's getting pathetic.

Quote:
To?
The rest of our lives. I'm about ready to leave. This is absurd.

Or the fact that his conclusion was trivial anyway. A point you've ignored. As if no one would notice. Indeed, your friends probably wouldn't - since they are so biased as to be blind.


Screw this. I'm not coming back. What a waste of time.
 
Old April 11th, 2009 #128
psychologicalshock
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,046
Default

Quote:
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.


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

Quote:
An argument either supports its conclusion, or it doesn't. An invalid argument does not support its conclusion.
Indeed and...?
Quote:
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?

Quote:
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).

Quote:
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

Last edited by psychologicalshock; April 11th, 2009 at 02:49 AM.
 
Old April 11th, 2009 #129
Larry Heinberg
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 615
Default

Quote:
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?
The infant analogy, you idiot. It proves the invalidity of that form, since its conclusion is false.

Have fun.
 
Old April 11th, 2009 #130
psychologicalshock
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Heinberg View Post
The infant analogy, you idiot. It proves the invalidity of that form, since its conclusion is false.
It's a conclusion from reason and as I said it's not a reasonable conclusion, validity doesn't really tie into it.
 
Old April 12th, 2009 #131
SPQR
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: near you
Posts: 250
Default

This was a good thread until hijacked by a couple of trumped-up psychos, who think they can expose their mental deficiencies online and get away with it.

It's just plain boring and am unsubscribing to the thread.

Argue your idiotic childish points on your own.
__________________
This bus is "Whites only". Your bus will be along in 3-4 hours.

The number one enemy of the white race is the jew. Number two is rabbi john jewtree. His concubines included.
 
Old April 12th, 2009 #132
Cernunnos
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The underworld
Posts: 1,934
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Psy, does one argue with a cockroach? If not, why do you debate this jew?
 
Old April 12th, 2009 #133
psychologicalshock
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cernunnos View Post
Psy, does one argue with a cockroach? If not, why do you debate this jew?
I was mostly doing it out of boredom and to see if it's possible to drive him off using his own tiresome bullshit. Apparently it is!
 
Old April 12th, 2009 #134
Larry Heinberg
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 615
Default

For the last time, I'm not a Jew. Enjoy your ad hominem "defence".

And yes, you "drove me off". So what? I'm still right. His argument was obviously worthless. So well done with your embarrassing attempts to hide that fact, with your ridiculous talk of "reason" and "validity". I'm sure it was sufficient for many of the blind idiots you seem keen to impress.

So yes, free from my interference, do carry on your ever popular, oxymoronic discussion of "white nationalist ethics" (or, as they are more widely known, "pretentions of a fuckwit").
 
Old May 14th, 2009 #135
psychologicalshock
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Heinberg View Post

"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.

Last edited by psychologicalshock; May 14th, 2009 at 02:52 PM.
 
Reply

Tags
jewed thread

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:55 AM.
Page generated in 0.81141 seconds.