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

Old April 6th, 2009 #81
Larry Heinberg
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 615
Larry Heinberg
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by psychologicalshock View Post
No it's not, you're using terms you don't even understand. That is not invalid and in fact is valid regardless of if the conditions are true or not. Please stop using logical terms. If you mean it isn't valid from your point of view then I don't care but to say it isn't valid by virtue of logic is false since it's rational. Unless of course you want to argue that desiring to live is unreasonable.
No, I mean that it is logically invalid. You dispute that, and yet say that the conclusion is true regardless of the premises? Maybe you don't know what validity is.

Given that I didn't specify "X", the form is clearly invalid. Things can be different without requiring or benefitting from a difference in behaviour.

Was there some important point you wanted to discuss?

Quote:
Quote:
And what you say isn't quite right. Just because blacks are disproportionately responsible for violent crimes, doesn't mean that you should treat a black man following you any differently from a white man.
well i guess you think it is better to be ignorant and vulnerable. thats your stupid choice, not that of a rational person
You're missing my point. I'm talking about logic. It is not logical to say that you should treat members of one group differently from members of another group, just because those groups differ in how dangerous they are.

How you should treat black people compared to white people is not the point of my remark there. I am saying that the evidence you provided for your behavioural recommendation was inadequate.

Quote:
Quote:
Perhaps neither group commits many violent crimes at all.
there s no perhaps here. what I said is verfiably true. you are a bullshitter just for suggesting it isnt.
Again, for clarity, this is not my point. I am not talking about blacks and whites in that example. I am talking about a logical form, and its ability to establish certain conclusions. I am not talking about specific cases.

Quote:
Quote:
And to be honest, it's a bit laughable that you'd compare the goings on on this website to marketing schemes.
sure, whatever. anybody with a brand markets. we got a lot of "diversity" of vnn but you dont need to know about that.
Heh?

Quote:
Quote:
And just because a person is not of your own race, doesn't mean that person is a bad person with ethics you should disaprove of. And so on.
yeah so what, I know people of other races who are honest, or that I may like. so what.
So stop supporting this hell-hole of racial aggression.

Quote:
Anyhow, for many social purposes, I have to stick together with whites. SImple as that.
I don't care about this.

Quote:
...it is at times my duty and my honor and my loyalty demanded of me by my blood...
Screw that haha.


Quote:
Quote:
Edit: Also, it seems you know a lot more about Jewish culture than I do. Heh.
if you know what all that stuff is you are either a jew or someone who's studied them.
Hahaha. I don't know what they are. They looked like Hebrew words, and I assumed you weren't just making them up.

Quote:
I am not a jew, but I have studied them. I'm guessing youre a jew, but I dont really care one way or another, since you sound like one and thats good enough for purposes of this conversation.
"Good enough"? It's irrelevant.
 
Old April 6th, 2009 #82
Antiochus Epiphanes
Ἀντίοχος Ἐπιφανὴς
 
Antiochus Epiphanes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: flyover
Posts: 13,175
Antiochus Epiphanes
Default

Larry,

We are not interesting in your Talmudic rationalism. There is a difference between reason and rationalism. Logic itself is just like math however, just a set of rules applied to symbols. Dont conflate logic and reason. I learned that from a Jew in collage. LOL

If you want to make a point about ethics which is germane to our conversation you better do so fast because so far you're just spinning your wheels aimlessly.
 
Old April 6th, 2009 #83
psychologicalshock
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Heinberg View Post
No, I mean that it is logically invalid. You dispute that, and yet say that the conclusion is true regardless of the premises? Maybe you don't know what validity is.
No you don't know what validity is, read what I said. The conclusion is valid regardless of if the premises are true. That is a true statement, look it up yourself you intellectual dwarf.
 
Old April 6th, 2009 #84
Karl Von Clausewitz!
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by psychologicalshock View Post
look it up yourself you intellectual dwarf.
Bare in mind, Larry had three quarters of his brain removed.
 
Old April 6th, 2009 #85
Larry Heinberg
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 615
Larry Heinberg
Default

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validit...y_of_arguments


If all you have to support an apparently correct position are invalid arguments, perhaps that position is not quite correct. That's why I point out invalidity.
 
Old April 7th, 2009 #86
SPQR
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: near you
Posts: 250
SPQR
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Heinberg View Post
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validit...y_of_arguments


If all you have to support an apparently correct position are invalid arguments, perhaps that position is not quite correct. That's why I point out invalidity.
What you point out is insanity due to racial in-breeding.

You think we are idiots? You are playing a game. It doesn't wash with
gentiles who know the truth.
__________________
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 7th, 2009 #87
Larry Heinberg
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 615
Larry Heinberg
Default

Oh, be nice.
 
Old April 7th, 2009 #88
psychologicalshock
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Heinberg View Post
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validit...y_of_arguments


If all you have to support an apparently correct position are invalid arguments, perhaps that position is not quite correct. That's why I point out invalidity.
The arguments aren't invalid, can't you read your own damn link you fucking idiot? You haven't done any logical analysis on any of our arguments whatsoever, you declared them to be invalid but you never showed that to be so. Way to be an idiot, how about actually reading about logic before talking about it Larry?

If you need wikipedia here's what I said before in Wikipedia format:

"The following argument is of the same logical form but with false premises and a false concusion, and it is equally valid:

All cups are green.
Socrates is a cup.
Therefore, Socrates is green. "
 
Old April 7th, 2009 #89
Larry Heinberg
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 615
Larry Heinberg
Default

"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."

"Since X group are disproportionately responsible for Y, one MUST assume that a person of X group is likely to commit Y".

That's what I replied to. It is not valid. There are many examples which demonstrate its invalidity.

And I posted that link because of your comment about a "valid" conclusion. Obviously you were going with a different usage, since validity of arguments is not a quality of conclusions. I don't "need" wikipedia - as if that would be relevant anyway. Stop being a wanker.
 
Old April 8th, 2009 #90
Antiochus Epiphanes
Ἀντίοχος Ἐπιφανὴς
 
Antiochus Epiphanes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: flyover
Posts: 13,175
Antiochus Epiphanes
Default

first things last larry you said:
Quote:
Stop being a wanker
OK larry, I will, when you stop being a kike. Or if you're not a cutdick, then, lets just say, when you stop being a "kikealike."

[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Heinberg View Post
".....
That's what I replied to. It is not valid. There are many examples which demonstrate its invalidity.
first off, this is way off topic, Linder started out talking about ethics "INGROUP" among WN not whether ot not its rational to assume the burly nigger sneaking up to you on the street may be up to no good. If you want to give the baggy pants thugs the benefit of the doubt larry go ahead just dont expect anybody with half a fucking brain to agree with you esp not around here.

distract and confuse, jewish modus operandi when discussing anything wiht a gentile
 
Old April 8th, 2009 #91
Hugh
Holorep survivor
 
Hugh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The wild frontier
Posts: 4,850
Hugh
Default

Larry, words are sounds and symbols that represent reality, not reality itself.
High Civilisations, in the sense used by Huntington, are not compatible.

The culture stratums in High Civilizations always eventually either replace the other, or separate from the other.
Where they co-exist, they do not do so for long.
Values, ethics etc differ between High Civilizations. There are to date few if any that are universal because whilst the acts may be the same, they are not viewed, carried out or reacted to the same way the same across High Civilizations.

The Western and African civilizations are High Civilizations, are not compatible, do not co-exist comfortably, and thus are separating from and replacing each other in various areas.

So far, without exception, when the African civilization has become dominant in a country, Westerners in that country are killed or flee.
Without exception, worldwide.
Words do not alter that reality.

So far, without exception, throughout their entire history, Jews, which are also a High Civilization, are unable to peacefully co-exist with others.
Without exception, Jews have been driven out, again and again.

This thread like most others here relate to physical survival.
You do not win arguments with us, because we aren't here to argue.
Our views are in line with the reality of Western High Civilization, yours aren't.
No Western group has ever survived for long living as you advocate.

We describe reality for the Western High Civilization, as it has existed for thousands of years.
You don't, and what you advocate has never worked for Westerners, thus is of only passing interest.

Westerners either accept reality, and work with reality, or don't.
Those that don't tend to suffer and die needlessly, but predictably, as a result of what we warned them would happen.

If you live under control of Non-westerners, you will either adopt their High Civilization, or they will drive you out or kill you.
The whole of history shows this.
Wordgames don't alter reality.
Arguments don't alter reality.
If you don't agree with us, fine, don't.

To matter, people and groups need to influence the future.
To influence the future, they must exist in the future.

Westerners who live under control of other Civilizations don't survive for long, the whole of history shows this, so they don't influence the future, so those Westerners don't matter.
Westerners who live under control of Westerners, as we advocate, have survived indefinitely so far, so do matter.

If you are a Westerner, you and/or your descendants will not physically survive being under control of an African civilization for long.
If you are not a Westerner, then you are unable to relate to us, or we to you, so there will almost never be agreement, we operate out of totally different paradigms.

Reality does not depend upon our description of it for its existence.
If we wish to exist, we need to work within reality.
The way we advocate our people live, as Westerners, under control of Westerners, has operated for thousands of years, kept our people alive, and made the West the most advanced Civilization in history.
No other way has to-date worked as long or as well.

Some of the best online descriptions of various aspects of what we deal with are here:

Carrying capacity of Western Civilization
http://www.garretthardinsociety.org

http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/...e_commons.html

Ethics and nationalism - Sir Arthur Keith
http://www.whitenationalism.com/etext/ak-intro.htm

WN in general
http://www.whitenationalism.com/

High and Western Civilizations
http://history.club.fatih.edu.tr/103...ull%20text.htm

The culture stratum
http://reactor-core.org/imperium.html

The state
http://www.barefootsworld.net/nockoets0.html
__________________
Secede. Control taxbases/municipalities. Use boycotts, divestment, sanctions, strikes.
http://www.aeinstein.org/wp-content/...d-Jan-2015.pdf
https://canvasopedia.org/wp-content/...Points-web.pdf
 
Old April 8th, 2009 #92
RebelWithACause
¡Confíeme en!
 
RebelWithACause's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Posts: 1,136
RebelWithACause
Default

Alex:

As much as I agree with the vast majority of what you said here, as a Southern man, I have to take issue with a tiny little portion of it:

For every pot-bellied, sheet-wearing, 3rd-grade-educated stereotypical klansman that the South produces today, there's an equal number of pot-bellied, costume-wearing, 3rd-grade-educated stereotypical neo-nazi produced in the north and out west.

This is not as much a regional problem as it is a systemic one.

I will grant you this:

The South used to produce many more racialists (and of much higher quality) than it does today. The Klan of the 50s is not the same Klan of today, and the 'average Southern racist' of today is nowhere near the quality in both education and fortitude of times past.

I would go so far as to say this is probably true of the north and west as well. The Kwa on the whole is producing a lower quality individual, and it's much harder to get a 'real and accurate' education. I believe this is by design.

I believe that pointing out specific regions in this particular debate would be more polarizing and divisive than useful.
__________________
James "Yankee Jim" Leshkevich 1955-2008
Email - [email protected]
All The News That's Fit To Print
 
Old April 8th, 2009 #93
psychologicalshock
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Heinberg View Post

"Since X group are disproportionately responsible for Y, one MUST assume that a person of X group is likely to commit Y".
That isn't an argument in the format of an argument
Rewritten:

Since group X is disproportionately responsible for event Y it is more likely that a member of group X will commit event Y than group Z (Whites in this case).



That is logical you buffoon (Albeit it's a statistical argument but I wont muddle your feeble brain with such concepts) . If the premise is true then the statement is valid and true. If it's not true then the statement is merely valid but there is not a single condition under which it becomes invalid.

All conclusions made from this are from reason, not logic and there is no statistical invalidity here even though you'd like to believe there is, but belief isn't enough, not even close.

Quote:
That's what I replied to. It is not valid. There are many examples which demonstrate its invalidity.
And I bet you cannot find not a single way to do it.

Quote:
And I posted that link because of your comment about a "valid" conclusion. Obviously you were going with a different usage, since validity of arguments is not a quality of conclusions. I don't "need" wikipedia - as if that would be relevant anyway. Stop being a wanker.
No I wasn't you just don't have any understanding of validity and the sooner you admit this the less I will have to keep humiliating you.
 
Old April 8th, 2009 #94
Larry Heinberg
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 615
Larry Heinberg
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Antiochus Epiphanes View Post
first things last larry you said:
Quote:
Stop being a wanker.
OK larry, I will, when you stop being a kike. Or if you're not a cutdick, then, lets just say, when you stop being a "kikealike."
Indeed. So you'll stop doing what's against your own interests, when I stop doing that? Odd proposal.

Quote:
first off, this is way off topic, Linder started out talking about ethics "INGROUP" among WN not whether ot not its rational to assume the burly nigger sneaking up to you on the street may be up to no good. If you want to give the baggy pants thugs the benefit of the doubt larry go ahead just dont expect anybody with half a fucking brain to agree with you esp not around here.
Did I say I would be giving them the benefit of the doubt? No, that's not my position, and it is not what I am arguing about.

Quote:
distract and confuse, jewish modus operandi when discussing anything wiht a gentile
I am a gentile, you idiot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by psychologicalshock View Post
That isn't an argument in the format of an argument
Rewritten:

Since group X is disproportionately responsible for event Y it is more likely that a member of group X will commit event Y than group Z (Whites in this case).
I disagree.

"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."

"Since X group are disproportionately responsible for Y, one MUST assume that a person of X group is likely to commit Y".

A difference in dangerousness between groups does not imply that one of the groups is a "serious potential threat". The fact that a difference exists between groups tells you nothing about the absolute likelihood that a member of one of the groups will behave in a certain way.

That is my point. He cited the difference alone. It is insufficient for reaching his conclusion. Therefore, his argument not valid.

If it were of the form you propose, his argument would be very bland indeed - practically a tautology.

Quote:
If the premise is true then the statement is valid and true.
This is not my usage of valid. A statement is not valid in the same way that an argument is valid. Validity of argument does not describe statements.

Quote:
If it's not true then the statement is merely valid but there is not a single condition under which it becomes invalid.
What?

Quote:
All conclusions made from this are from reason, not logic and there is no statistical invalidity here even though you'd like to believe there is, but belief isn't enough, not even close.
What on earth are you talking about? I made no comments about statistics. The whole point is that I could grant his statistical claims and still be unable to trust his conclusion on that basis.

Quote:
Quote:
That's what I replied to. It is not valid. There are many examples which demonstrate its invalidity.
And I bet you cannot find not a single way to do it.
There's no point in my doing so if you don't agree that his argument was of that form.

But anyway -
"if you know that 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 man is following you, then you SHOULD indeed you MUST assume based on his GROUP that he presents a serious potential threat"

There you go.

Quote:
Quote:
And I posted that link because of your comment about a "valid" conclusion. Obviously you were going with a different usage, since validity of arguments is not a quality of conclusions. I don't "need" wikipedia - as if that would be relevant anyway. Stop being a wanker.
No I wasn't you just don't have any understanding of validity and the sooner you admit this the less I will have to keep humiliating you.
You have used validity in many ways. You certainly were not always talking about validity of arguments, since you described conclusions and statements as "valid". That is a reasonable usage, but a different one. Indeed, in this discussion it confuses the issue.
 
Old April 8th, 2009 #95
psychologicalshock
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Heinberg View Post


I disagree.

"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."
I reconstructed the argument to what it really is if you want to analyze it use my model. What you're analyzing is merely to do with semantics and nothing to do with the argument.

As for the pure statement yes it is reasonable to assume that if a negro is following you at night then he is a danger to you, what you are suggesting is exactly why people die. It is reasonable to assume that if there is a significant chance of a black being a criminal then you have to be cautious, there is nothing invalid about this as it's reason, not logic.


Quote:
A difference in dangerousness between groups does not imply that one of the groups is a "serious potential threat". The fact that a difference exists between groups tells you nothing about the absolute likelihood that a member of one of the groups will behave in a certain way.
Uh yes it does, are you an idiot? If you have a bag with 9 blue marbles and 1 red marble and another bag with 9 red marble and 1 blue marble then from which bag will you likely acquire a red marble on reaching in and getting one? First or second? This isn't hard Larry.

If statistical probability wasn't a good method of determining the chance of something happening don't you think the whole concept would have been scrapped to begin with?

Quote:
That is my point. He cited the difference alone. It is insufficient for reaching his conclusion. Therefore, his argument not valid.
That is not an invalid argument you are again abusing language and you are completely wrong cease at once you dumbfuck.


Quote:
This is not my usage of valid. A statement is not valid in the same way that an argument is valid. Validity of argument does not describe statements.
No it's not, it is valid. Your argument that it isn't valid does not follow it's just you saying it isn't, there is no logical analysis whatsoever. You are essentially saying that the likelihood of a negroid being a criminal and attacking you cannot be determines from the derived likelihood of him attacking.
Learn the difference between reason and logic.


Quote:
There's no point in my doing so if you don't agree that his argument was of that form.

But anyway -
"if you know that 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 man is following you, then you SHOULD indeed you MUST assume based on his GROUP that he presents a serious potential threat"
First of all that was rhetorical and your reconstructed statement is stupid because its actually true where you're trying to show how it's false . Second of all yes it is valid to say that if a stranger is following you at night and he's a man you're more likely to get robbed than if it's a woman, everyone knows this except Larry the idiot it seems. Why are you making arguments that completely backfire? Are you retarded?


Quote:
You have used validity in many ways. You certainly were not always talking about validity of arguments, since you described conclusions and statements as "valid". That is a reasonable usage, but a different one. Indeed, in this discussion it confuses the issue.
You have no idea what validity is to begin with if you knew you'd understand that the argument is valid simply from statistics, refer to the marble argument and report back when you've thought about it deeply.
 
Old April 9th, 2009 #96
Larry Heinberg
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 615
Larry Heinberg
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by psychologicalshock View Post
I reconstructed the argument to what it really is if you want to analyze it use my model. What you're analyzing is merely to do with semantics and nothing to do with the argument.
I largely agree with your argument. I do not agree that it is the same as his.

Quote:
As for the pure statement yes it is reasonable to assume that if a negro is following you at night then he is a danger to you
I didn't say otherwise.

Quote:
It is reasonable to assume that if there is a significant chance of a black being a criminal then you have to be cautious, there is nothing invalid about this as it's reason, not logic.
This is a separate issue, which I may address later. If you wish.

Quote:
Quote:
A difference in dangerousness between groups does not imply that one of the groups is a "serious potential threat". The fact that a difference exists between groups tells you nothing about the absolute likelihood that a member of one of the groups will behave in a certain way.
Uh yes it does, are you an idiot? If you have a bag with 9 blue marbles and 1 red marble and another bag with 9 red marble and 1 blue marble then from which bag will you likely acquire a red marble on reaching in and getting one? First or second? This isn't hard Larry.
No, but it is a false comparison.

A truer comparison would be this:
I have a bag with some coloured marbles in it. Among others, there are red marbles and blue marbles. There are more red marbles than blue marbles.

What is the probability of drawing a red marble? Greater than the probability of drawing a blue marble. We cannot say the exact probabilities, or even how much more likely we are to draw a red marble than a blue one, given the information provided.

Quote:
If statistical probability wasn't a good method of determining the chance of something happening don't you think the whole concept would have been scrapped to begin with?
No one has mentioned "statistical probability".

Quote:
Quote:
That is my point. He cited the difference alone. It is insufficient for reaching his conclusion. Therefore, his argument not valid.
That is not an invalid argument you are again abusing language and you are completely wrong cease at once you dumbfuck.
"Cease at once you dumbfuck". What an excellent summary of the White Nationalist movement. Pretentious barbarism.

Was there some point you wanted to make here? I have said which argument I believe is invalid. You have not replied to that, other than to say my version of the argument is incorrect. Technically, my version is correct - whether he meant what he said is another matter. Either way, he should not have said what he did - because it was invalid and therefore misleading.

Quote:
Quote:
This is not my usage of valid. A statement is not valid in the same way that an argument is valid. Validity of argument does not describe statements.
No it's not, it is valid. Your argument that it isn't valid does not follow it's just you saying it isn't, there is no logical analysis whatsoever.
What are you talking about? I never said my word was enough. I've demonstrated its invalidity. At the very least, I have attempted to do so. Stop making things up.

Quote:
You are essentially saying that the likelihood of a negroid being a criminal and attacking you cannot be determines from the derived likelihood of him attacking.
Where have I said that?

Quote:
Quote:
There's no point in my doing so if you don't agree that his argument was of that form.

But anyway -
"if you know that 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 man is following you, then you SHOULD indeed you MUST assume based on his GROUP that he presents a serious potential threat"
First of all that was rhetorical and your reconstructed statement is stupid because its actually true where you're trying to show how it's false .
It doesn't need to be false. Even if it's true, the argument still provides no differential information about the races. It merely says that black men are not less dangerous than white men.

Quote:
Second of all yes it is valid to say that if a stranger is following you at night and he's a man you're more likely to get robbed than if it's a woman, everyone knows this except Larry the idiot it seems.
And if you think for one second, you will realise that I am not arguing that negroes are not more likely than whites to rob people.


Quote:
Quote:
You have used validity in many ways. You certainly were not always talking about validity of arguments, since you described conclusions and statements as "valid". That is a reasonable usage, but a different one. Indeed, in this discussion it confuses the issue.
You have no idea what validity is to begin with if you knew you'd understand that the argument is valid simply from statistics, refer to the marble argument and report back when you've thought about it deeply.
I do know what validity is. Validity is the quality possessed by an argument whose conclusion must be true if its premises are true. The premises of his argument have little bearing on its conclusion - they could be true and the conclusion false, they could be false and the conclusion true. His argument is not valid.

Statistical data does not make a valid argument. The fact that you mention them shows that you are using a different meaning of the term "validity".

I have never once said that blacks are not more likely to be criminals than are whites. That is a well documented statistical phenomenon which I do not argue with. Welcome to reality.
 
Old April 9th, 2009 #97
Steve B
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Cali
Posts: 6,907
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Heinberg View Post
Statistical data does not make a valid argument. The fact that you mention them shows that you are using a different meaning of the term "validity".

I have never once said that blacks are not more likely to be criminals than are whites. That is a well documented statistical phenomenon which I do not argue with. Welcome to reality.
Huh? Aren't these two statements self contradictory?
 
Old April 9th, 2009 #98
Larry Heinberg
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 615
Larry Heinberg
Default

Not if you're talking about validity of arguments rather than truth of conclusions. The argument I was dealing with was invalid, and it's conclusion trivial, true or not. Incidently, I wouldn't say the conclusion (as stated) was false.
 
Old April 9th, 2009 #99
psychologicalshock
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Heinberg View Post
I largely agree with your argument. I do not agree that it is the same as his.
Fine, take it up with him.

Quote:
No, but it is a false comparison.

A truer comparison would be this:
I have a bag with some coloured marbles in it. Among others, there are red marbles and blue marbles. There are more red marbles than blue marbles.

What is the probability of drawing a red marble? Greater than the probability of drawing a blue marble. We cannot say the exact probabilities, or even how much more likely we are to draw a red marble than a blue one, given the information provided.
Are you saying that a detailed FBI report of exact crime per unit of population isn't precise enough? That's just the lower bound too since true crime is significantly higher.

By the way your example doesn't make sense, if the chance is higher then how did you find out it's higher ? By experimenting? If you experiment (Do it 1 by 1) you'll get an exact number until you at least get 50% Blue or red you cannot say with 100% that the probability is higher or lower. Your argument is actually nonsense and irrelevant , well done. Even if it is true using approximations it still doesn't contradict my argument or the original argument since exactness isn't needed for the argument made merely a more than or less than.

Might be a bit late to point it out but his argument actually is just a statistical syllogism so your goal isn't actually to target validity but to target accuracy.




Quote:
Was there some point you wanted to make here? I have said which argument I believe is invalid.
That isn't a logical argument, it's merely a statement of reason with an argument within it.









Quote:
I do know what validity is. Validity is the quality possessed by an argument whose conclusion must be true if its premises are true. The premises of his argument have little bearing on its conclusion - they could be true and the conclusion false, they could be false and the conclusion true. His argument is not valid.
No his premises lead exactly to the conclusion, I have reconstructed the argument and took out reason, that is his argument and it is perfectly sensical. What you said isn't true since as your demonstration showed the same line of reasoning is true for men. So nice try but no cigar. The statement is accurate as long as the group does actually commit more crime.

Quote:
Statistical data does not make a valid argument. The fact that you mention them shows that you are using a different meaning of the term "validity".
Statistics and probability are actually an excellent argument and commonly used in inductive logic.
 
Old April 9th, 2009 #100
Larry Heinberg
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 615
Larry Heinberg
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by psychologicalshock View Post
Fine, take it up with him.
Umm, I did?

Quote:
Are you saying that a detailed FBI report of exact crime per unit of population isn't precise enough?
What do you think? Am I saying that?

Obviously not. No one has cited such information.

Quote:
By the way your example doesn't make sense, if the chance is higher then how did you find out it's higher ?
Doesn't matter. He's citing the fact that it's higher, not actual figures of likelihood. My whole point is that he should be citing those actual figures of likelihood, since they are relevant.

Quote:
Even if it is true using approximations it still doesn't contradict my argument or the original argument since exactness isn't needed for the argument made merely a more than or less than.
Wrong. As I demonstrated with my version of your marble analogy, you do need more than the knowledge of a difference to reach his conclusion.

Quote:
Might be a bit late to point it out but his argument actually is just a statistical syllogism so your goal isn't actually to target validity but to target accuracy.
No it isn't. I did not challenge his statistical claim. I challenged his use of it to reach a conclusion (i.e., I challenged the validity of his argument).

Quote:
Quote:
Was there some point you wanted to make here? I have said which argument I believe is invalid.
That isn't a logical argument, it's merely a statement of reason with an argument within it.
What isn't? His remark? I disagree. Clearly he was making an argument. Note his use of "then", meaning "therefore".

His argument is invalid, and it is important that that be known. He provided virtually no support for his conclusion, and it is important that people do not make the mistake of thinking he did. Otherwise they may claim more support than actually exists.

Quote:
Quote:
I do know what validity is. Validity is the quality possessed by an argument whose conclusion must be true if its premises are true. The premises of his argument have little bearing on its conclusion - they could be true and the conclusion false, they could be false and the conclusion true. His argument is not valid.
No his premises lead exactly to the conclusion, I have reconstructed the argument and took out reason, that is his argument and it is perfectly sensical. What you said isn't true since as your demonstration showed the same line of reasoning is true for men. So nice try but no cigar. The statement is accurate as long as the group does actually commit more crime.
Oh really?

"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"

Still valid? Catching on yet? A difference in dangerousness between two groups does not imply that either group is actually "dangerous" or "a serious potential threat". To say differently is simply false.

I think you are still mistaking his remarks. Perhaps you think he meant "on average, you should be more careful of black men than of white men, since black men are more likely to be violent criminals". He did not say that, and I did not challenge it (though I do consider it trivial).

Quote:
Quote:
Statistical data does not make a valid argument. The fact that you mention them shows that you are using a different meaning of the term "validity".
Statistics and probability are actually an excellent argument and commonly used in inductive logic.
Did I say otherwise? No. Stop making things up.
 
Reply

Tags
jewed thread

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:58 AM.
Page generated in 0.18864 seconds.