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

Old April 2nd, 2009 #41
Larry Heinberg
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 615
Larry Heinberg
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Antiochus Epiphanes View Post
bullshit, this is the total bullshit that flies in the face of common sense.

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.
This doesn't actually relate to what I said. Race membership is not defined by these things.

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. Perhaps neither group commits many violent crimes at all. Perhaps both groups are risky enough to be careful of. In this case, I think the latter option applies.

Indeed, I'm not against all racial judgements, just some (perhaps most) of them.


Quote:
Reaching inside the purse to ready the revolver is a rational response
Let's not go into that one haha.

Quote:
Social groups such as race or ethnic-tribal belonging-- Jewishness for example-- when you know the group, it tells you something probably about the individual, in certain contexts.
Not really. It gives you a way to guess about the individual. The guess (prejudgement) may or may not be accurate enough to bother with.

Quote:
THe information is useful. We should want to know it, and we should use the information whenever its useful to us. Just like marketers who spend billions of dollars a year studying group demographics including age, sex, religion, neighborhood, geographic, class, income, edcuational level, blah blah blah, a thousand group belongings, do this and spend tons of money on it because it is useful.
Sure. I've not argued against this.

And to be honest, it's a bit laughable that you'd compare the goings on on this website to marketing schemes.

Quote:
YET: the purpose of the thread topic as I see it, is not to justify the rational use of social groupings, such as race, but to point out that just because someone agrees with us that race may be used for rational and constructive purposes, and just beause that person is our own race, doesnt mean that person is a good person with ethics we would approve of or desire to associate ourselves with.
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.

Quote:
There is nothing contradictory between observing group tendencies, and being able to take this or that individual as an exception to the group tendency, in some important way.

Larry, now you can go back to your mikvah, or doing your metzizah b'peh, or making matzohs or whatever it is that all do this time of year.
Cutting it fine with these two bits, aren't you?

Edit: Also, it seems you know a lot more about Jewish culture than I do. Heh.
 
Old April 2nd, 2009 #42
Steve B
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Cali
Posts: 6,907
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Heinberg View Post

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.
My god, the disconnect. Free yourself Larry, from all the marxist prop that has been fed into your already addled brain. It really is an enlightening experience. Knowing that everything you've ever been taught in school and on the jewtube is lies. An allegory itz:

Just because sharks are disproportionately responsible for ocean crimes, doesn't mean that you should treat a shark following you any differently from any other fish.

It's all so simple when you abandon the egalitarian bullshit.
 
Old April 2nd, 2009 #43
Marse Supial
Creepy-Ass Cracker
 
Marse Supial's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Where "Yes" Is A Two-Syllable Word.
Posts: 3,822
Marse Supial
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve B View Post
My god, the disconnect. Free yourself Larry, from all the marxist prop that has been fed into your already addled brain. It really is an enlightening experience. Knowing that everything you've ever been taught in school and on the jewtube is lies. An allegory itz:

Just because sharks are disproportionately responsible for ocean crimes, doesn't mean that you should treat a shark following you any differently from any other fish.

It's all so simple when you abandon the egalitarian bullshit.
Nicely put.
 
Old April 2nd, 2009 #44
psychologicalshock
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Heinberg View Post

All whites better than all non-whites in a given field? Obviously not.
Almost all, yes.

Out of curiosity what constitutes class membership anyways? If I am a world reknown chemist am I in the same category as an empty-headed nigger ? If so then you're wrong , class membership doesn't render any valid judgment. If it doesn't then "class membership" becomes a vague term and since it's vague judging by it will give similarly vague results. Most blacks in the particular class that I am well familiar with are in fact an example of my point, the local black scientists at an agricultural institute here would likely tell you less about their field than a farmer or a pre-bachelor student. Yet if we use class basis you'd say they are equal to say Dr.Watson and that gives laughable results.

Also I don't understand why you extrapolate racism as being judgment of individuals rather than groups, that has never been the point so I don't really see your objective as disproving it wont give any credence to your point (Not that you can now that you've made such an absurd statement).

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.
This is how one would define irrationality.
 
Old April 2nd, 2009 #45
Larry Heinberg
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 615
Larry Heinberg
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve B View Post
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.
My god, the disconnect. Free yourself Larry, from all the marxist prop that has been fed into your already addled brain. It really is an enlightening experience. Knowing that everything you've ever been taught in school and on the jewtube is lies. An allegory itz:

Just because sharks are disproportionately responsible for ocean crimes, doesn't mean that you should treat a shark following you any differently from any other fish.

It's all so simple when you abandon the egalitarian bullshit.
Keep reading.

"Perhaps neither group commits many violent crimes at all. Perhaps both groups are risky enough to be careful of. In this case, I think the latter option applies."

Quote:
Originally Posted by psychologicalshock View Post
Out of curiosity what constitutes class membership anyways?
Don't ask me. It doesn't matter for my point anyway.

I'm saying that class membership is defined by attributes which are more relevant than morphology. Race membership isn't. Therefore, class membership is probably a better thing to judge by than is race membership.

I never said race membership should never be used to make judgements.

Quote:
Also I don't understand why you extrapolate racism as being judgment of individuals rather than groups
Because this site is thick with racial abuse and hatred. Often directed at individuals.

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.
This is how one would define irrationality.
No it isn't. To say the contrary would be illogical.

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.
 
Old April 2nd, 2009 #46
psychologicalshock
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Heinberg View Post


Don't ask me. It doesn't matter for my point anyway.
Yes it does, it's all your point rests on. If it's vague then your point collapses.

Quote:
I'm saying that class membership is defined by attributes which are more relevant than morphology. Race membership isn't. Therefore, class membership is probably a better thing to judge by than is race membership.
How can you judge on something that you can't define? Race is clearly defined class is vague and without any borders.As far as it goes if there is a society of White people and a society of blacks its clear who will be more successful, given that its clear that if you mix them nothing will change.


Quote:
Because this site is thick with racial abuse and hatred. Often directed at individuals.
So? Individuals such as whom? Whoever these individuals are typically deserve it.

Quote:
No it isn't. To say the contrary would be illogical.
No it's perfectly rational, the larger the danger the more careful you have to be. Refer to Steve B's shark example.


Quote:
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.
If you're so sure go wander around in Detroit at night .
 
Old April 2nd, 2009 #47
Larry Heinberg
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 615
Larry Heinberg
Default

Can't you understand?

I'm talking about what can and can't be used to reach a conclusion. The mere presence of a difference in dangerousness can't be used to reach the conclusions I mentioned.

I did not say which conclusion was correct. Please try to understand this very simple point.
 
Old April 2nd, 2009 #48
psychologicalshock
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Heinberg View Post
Can't you understand?

I'm talking about what can and can't be used to reach a conclusion.
According to your judgment. You're judging what can and can be done according to your subjective ideas.

Quote:
The mere presence of a difference in dangerousness can't be used to reach the conclusions I mentioned.
Uhm yes it can, I don't really see where the flaw in reason is. The flaw in reason is your's.

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.


Same reasoning applies to blacks. I am sure there are sharks that will let you ride on their back but I wont go swimming with them, that's irrational.




Quote:
I did not say which conclusion was correct. Please try to understand this very simple point.
I missed your analysis of the logical validity of the argument , was there any?
 
Old April 2nd, 2009 #49
Larry Heinberg
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 615
Larry Heinberg
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?
 
Old April 2nd, 2009 #50
psychologicalshock
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Heinberg View Post
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.
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.
 
Old April 3rd, 2009 #51
McKinley
coast to coast WN
 
McKinley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Louisville KY area
Posts: 5,775
McKinley
Default

Hey Larry, do you live in a Nigger ghetto?

If you do not then why don't you?
__________________
nothing says lovin' like a jew in the oven

Kentckyanna True News

"What do you expect? All we got on this team are a bunch a Jews, spics, niggers, pansies -- and a booger-eatin' moron!"

Tanner Boyle - short stop for the Bad News Bears.
 
Old April 3rd, 2009 #52
Antiochus Epiphanes
Ἀντίοχος Ἐπιφανὴς
 
Antiochus Epiphanes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: flyover
Posts: 13,175
Antiochus Epiphanes
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Heinberg View Post
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

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.

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.

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. we get along fine when we need to. its only the jewish propaganda machine that says a white loyalist cant get along with non whites. non-whites who are decent, in fact, like me fine, because I am decent; in fact they often like me better than the dumbfuck white sheeple who has no sense of race. Especially if they are immigrants who havent hopped on the whole Hymie-lead AA/ PC bandwagon. Most native born coloreds steer clear of me because they can tell I dont buy into the bullshit. at least in my experience; which over the years has been far more extensive than I ever desired. anyhow, I give a fuckall one way or another. I dont seek their approval nor yours.

Anyhow, for many social purposes, I have to stick together with whites. SImple as that. Like it or not; but generally it is my pleasure to do so, it is at times my duty and my honor and my loyalty demanded of me by my blood, and I wont let jewish bullshit convince me otherwise.

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. 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.

i'd have rather studied some things I liked, rather than jews, but, jews were powerful and force us to pay attention to them whether we like them or not.
 
Old April 4th, 2009 #53
SPQR
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: near you
Posts: 250
SPQR
Default

Larry Heinberg is a jew. It is endemic in the jew to advance the cause of the negro, because they are a so called minority. Jews believe that if they support all minorities they support themselves.

He will argue that we shouldn't single out this minority and that minority, with the end result being that the jew is protected. Of course, wrapped up in this is the continual attack on the White race, who the jew sees as his enemy.

The jews are intent on not seeing another 1930's Germany situation arise where minorities, i.e. jews,gypsies,homosexuals et al. were singled out as being, quite rightly, detrimental to the host nation.

Forget arguing the finer points with jews. They will stick it out arguing all sorts of bullshit that is intended to wrap us up in knots.

A jew is a jew fullstop.
__________________
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 4th, 2009 #54
Lasher
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: The South
Posts: 216
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Heinberg View Post
Keep reading.

"Perhaps neither group commits many violent crimes at all. Perhaps both groups are risky enough to be careful of. In this case, I think the latter option applies."


Don't ask me. It doesn't matter for my point anyway.

I'm saying that class membership is defined by attributes which are more relevant than morphology. Race membership isn't. Therefore, class membership is probably a better thing to judge by than is race membership.

I never said race membership should never be used to make judgements.


Because this site is thick with racial abuse and hatred. Often directed at individuals.


No it isn't. To say the contrary would be illogical.

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.
Lasher had much rather be accosted on a dark street by a fellow whiteman than a nigger, because the nigger would most likely be the owner of a headful of anger and hate toward any white he meets, and take it out on his victim, whereas the whiteman would probably just want to rob his victim and make his getaway. There are probably very few whitemen lurking down in the dark streets of niggertown waiting for a nigger to come by to rob and maim, but nigger thugs are everywhere.
 
Old April 4th, 2009 #55
Lasher
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: The South
Posts: 216
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Heinberg View Post
Except facts in the face of generalisations?


Not as important as race? I'd think it'd be more important. If you always judge by class you will make fewer errors than if you always judge by race. Depending on how it's defined. Since class membership is based on relevant attributes.
Nothing is as important as race; as your fellow Jew, Benjamin Disraeli, said: "Race is all, there is no other truth!" Although he was undoubtedly referring to Jews, it is still an axiomatic statement about race in general.

Once the great goose that laid the golden egg of civilization and human progress, the white race, is destroyed, the world as we know it will, without a doubt, regress to the jungle. The white race has been in the vanguard of all human progress, and without it, there will be no civilization as we know it.

The vast majority of all the exploring, discoveries, inventions, etc. that have benefited humanity as a whole have been by the hand of the great white race, and to deny this self-evident truth would, indeed, be a lie.
 
Old April 4th, 2009 #56
Lasher
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: The South
Posts: 216
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Anderson View Post
There is a so-called WN named Don Black, who does lie, who has been the first to cast lying slander in any argument. That person, Don Black, needs to be exposed for what he has done, slandering WN, over the years.

The flag of Stormfront must fall. Another WN nation will take over.

Don Black has always been the first to lie, the first to defame. That person has to be shunned from all White community.

We have to stand up and defend White honor and the principles of truth.
Aren't you doing to him exactly what you are telling us not to do? BTW, Lasher doesn't know anything about Don Black.
 
Old April 4th, 2009 #57
KMRATHELL
deken
 
KMRATHELL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,865
KMRATHELL
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lasher View Post
Aren't you doing to him exactly what you are telling us not to do? BTW, Lasher doesn't know anything about Don Black.
Shouldn't you research Don Black before you make spurious claims of defamation? You claim you know nothing about him yet you criticize someone making comments about him.
 
Old April 4th, 2009 #58
Lasher
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: The South
Posts: 216
Default

QUOTE=Larry Heinberg;969259]"Well yeah, I them, your honour, but I know for a fact that some other dude killed 3 times as many people!"

And I'm not a Jew anyway. Stop this nonsense.

Just by reading your name and your posts, what else is one to think?


I know almost nothing about either of them. So... 50-50.


It's just a deduction.

Race membership is decided by luck.


Not at all, old sport, it is decided by whether one's parents are miscegenetic or not.

Class membership is decided by relevant factors (e.g., wealth).
Therefore, judgements based on race will be, on average, less accurate than judgements based on class.

Not at all; it is a proven fact that mud races are more violent than whites, as an example.

Personally I doubt there'd be more than one or two people who would be in a position to use either sort of judgement.

Just curious, old sport, are you British, or are you misspelling "judgment" that way on purpose?



What biological and genetic attributes of race? Besides morphology, none that I know of apply to all members. Class is (or can be) different in that regard.

When judging one race against another, one must deal in averages, not individuals, and it is a fact that niggers, on average, are some 15% lower in IQ than whites are, and also some 50,000 years behind us in evolution.
 
Old April 4th, 2009 #59
Lasher
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: The South
Posts: 216
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KMRATHELL View Post
Shouldn't you research Don Black before you make spurious claims of defamation? You claim you know nothing about him yet you criticize someone making comments about him.
The point was not whether or not Lasher knew Don Black, it was whether or not we should disparage one another in here, wasn't it? It is possible that the person posting against him has a personal grudge.
 
Old April 4th, 2009 #60
KMRATHELL
deken
 
KMRATHELL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,865
KMRATHELL
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lasher View Post
The point was not whether or not Lasher knew Don Black, it was whether or not we should disparage one another in here, wasn't it? It is possible that the person posting against him has a personal grudge.

Black may or may not have been one of us at one time. His wife helps non-Whites, his son and he both embrace the Republican Party, a tool of the Jew, and he is a proven liar. He employs anti-White moderators in his scam and uses donations to send family members to exotic vacations as shown on David Duke's own web site. Surely you are not inferring Black is one of us now?
 
Reply

Tags
jewed thread

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:43 PM.
Page generated in 0.15922 seconds.