|
April 11th, 2009 | #121 | |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 615
|
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:
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. |
|
April 11th, 2009 | #122 | ||
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,046
|
Quote:
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. Last edited by psychologicalshock; April 11th, 2009 at 12:44 AM. |
||
April 11th, 2009 | #123 | |||||
Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 615
|
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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? |
|||||
April 11th, 2009 | #124 | ||
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,046
|
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
||
April 11th, 2009 | #125 | |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 615
|
No, it doesn't.
Quote:
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. |
|
April 11th, 2009 | #126 | ||
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,046
|
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:
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:
Last edited by psychologicalshock; April 11th, 2009 at 02:14 AM. |
||
April 11th, 2009 | #127 | |||
Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 615
|
Quote:
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:
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:
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. |
|||
April 11th, 2009 | #128 | ||||||
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,046
|
Quote:
Quote:
Elsewhere? Not that many. Quote:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
Last edited by psychologicalshock; April 11th, 2009 at 02:49 AM. |
||||||
April 11th, 2009 | #129 | |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 615
|
Quote:
Have fun. |
|
April 11th, 2009 | #130 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,046
|
|
April 12th, 2009 | #131 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: near you
Posts: 250
|
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. |
April 12th, 2009 | #133 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,046
|
|
April 12th, 2009 | #134 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 615
|
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"). |
May 14th, 2009 | #135 | |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,046
|
Quote:
(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. |
|
Tags |
jewed thread |
Share |
Thread | |
Display Modes | |
|