|
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. |
||
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:
|
||
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:
|
||||||
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. |
|
June 29th, 2012 | #136 |
Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 299
|
Could not agree more. How can we look at muds and claim to be superior if we are displaying the same behaviors?
__________________
WHEN INJUSTICE BECOMES LAW, RESISTANCE BECOMES DUTY |
July 11th, 2012 | #137 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,089
|
Sometimes the ones who are called by some as "Smear mongers" have the evidence to back it up. And then you have another group of people who will stand by their man to the very end, regardless of how much evidence is piled to prove whether a specific group or leader has be proven to be doing wrong, or taking advantage of the movement.
I have a personal set of beliefs as what a leader of the WN movement needs to be. And any leader who doesn't fit my predefined characteristics will get no respect from me. A leader in the movement needs to be: #1 Honest, and straight forward, and doesn't bullshit people around. #2 Doesn't straight up lie to prospects just to butter up the message. #3 Can account for every dollar they receive, as well as list expenses. If they receive more than they need, have the courtesy to say I have an X amount in a pool that I don't have an immediate use for, and can we come to a consensus as to what we should spend this on to better our agenda? If they are honest about the money, then nobody will ever accuse them of being a crook or swindler. If they are in dire financial need, and require some help, just ask, and nobody will fault them. #4 Be a great speaker, and know how to communicate with people on a personal level. This is especially useful when trying to sway people to our cause. #5 And finally the most important quality a leader needs. Very strict moral character, meaning that their desire to help our Race and Nation must be above all desires of material gains, because even if they fit all of the above requirements, but lack this one, they will just be bought out by our enemies. I haven't seen a leader in the movement currently who fits all of the above categories. But that doesn't mean there isn't one. Am I being too picky, or are these reasonable expectations? I expect leaders to set the example, and stand on a higher ground of moral character than your average Joe. |
July 16th, 2012 | #138 |
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 143
|
|
July 16th, 2012 | #139 | ||
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 4,130
|
Georgie Thinks that Linder Is Hypocritical Tyrant
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
January 14th, 2014 | #140 |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 5
|
I know when I was in the USP 1 at FCC Coleman in the B.O.P (federal max prison),
We had legitimate WN convicts affiliated with outside groups.Locked up Order members such as Richard Scutari. We also had "White Aryan" prison gangs who were only motivated by profit. I am a patched member of WAR (yes,TT's old outfit). There is WAR prison group evolved from TT's white aryan resistance.Some dabble in the prison drug trade.I'm sure TT would not approved this evolution of WAR in the federal system. ARM,,AB,AC,SAC,DWB, They are not for race and nation.They're the Heroin Brotherhood! I'll get to the point. USP's are very dangerous places.Infighting is handles with beatings, stabbings, and killings inhouse. But that's prison.Us aryan guys in prison impose the same sentances on our comrades as we would a member of Paisa or black muslim groups |
Tags |
jewed thread |
Share |
Thread | |
Display Modes | |
|