|
April 9th, 2009 | #101 |
Ἀντίοχος Ἐπιφανὴς
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: flyover
Posts: 13,175
|
Did I tell you to STFU yet Larry? Keep dancin on the head of a pin with Larry folks and you're wasting precious time.
|
April 9th, 2009 | #102 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 615
|
My, who could stand up to such a mighty argument as that? You must be correct after all.
|
April 9th, 2009 | #103 | |
Ἀντίοχος Ἐπιφανὴς
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: flyover
Posts: 13,175
|
Quote:
On a thread distracting everyone from a discussion about holding white loyalist leader candidates to some kind of standards, and you show up and start in with the Talmudic logic bullshit and splitting hairs. Distract and confuse, distract and confuse. If you're not a kike "Larry" then you are doing their work. |
|
April 9th, 2009 | #104 | |
Ἀντίοχος Ἐπιφανὴς
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: flyover
Posts: 13,175
|
Quote:
|
|
April 9th, 2009 | #105 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,465
|
Heinberg's vendetta against syllogistic reasoning has reached ridiculous depths. With maniacal persistence, again and again she attempts to demonstrate that the syllogism and the truth aren't on speaking terms.
Heinburg, sweetie, don't be irritated at deduction for being a classification system. Not everything can be induction. All niggers are bad news. Leroy is a nigger. Leroy is bad news. That's as far as you can get with deduction and we agree - it tells us nothing new. Now move on. |
April 9th, 2009 | #106 | |||
Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 615
|
Quote:
Quote:
You gave an invalid argument. I won't sit here and let invalid arguments through as if they support the barbarous attitudes of this community. Quote:
"Distract and confuse" indeed. I suppose I derailed the thread, but I made no fallacious (misleading) arguments. Guess you must be a "kike", huh? Since you deliberately attemtped to mislead everyone with your fallacies (and succeeded). But no. I can tell that you just made a mistake (for which I have hardly abused you). I don't need to make ridiculous, unfalsifiable, irrelevant and ill-evidenced accusations in order to "win" a debate. |
|||
April 9th, 2009 | #107 | ||
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,046
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
April 9th, 2009 | #108 | |
Ἀντίοχος Ἐπιφανὴς
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: flyover
Posts: 13,175
|
Quote:
if by barbarians, you mean those who are not bound by the false and timid conventions of political correctness, who are willing to do harm to our foes on behalf of our tribe, you got that right! Damn straight we are those kinds of barbarians and hair splitting spineless overcivilized "men" like you should quit wasting your words on us. Divert your attention folks from this bullshitter, listen to Terrible Tommy and old Matt Hale give some speeches touching on these subjects. http://www.resist.com/war_network/ra..._IndJuly03.mp3 |
|
April 9th, 2009 | #109 |
Ἀντίοχος Ἐπιφανὴς
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: flyover
Posts: 13,175
|
here's a barbarian on ethics, and the eudaemonia, I remember this was the first rated R movie I saw when I was a kid and I loved it. I'd already been reading Robert E Howard and so I knew what was coming. My mom was a little shocked but dad loved it. RIP
|
April 9th, 2009 | #110 | |||||
Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 615
|
Quote:
If an argument is valid, true premises will necessitate that its conclusion be true. The whole point is that the conclusion I gave is unreasonable. If the argument is valid and its premises true, it will never yield an unreasonable (untrue) conclusion. This argument yielded one, so either it is invalid, or its premises are false. You yourself hold that the premise is true, so you must accept that the argument is invalid. Whether its conclusion is true or not is a separate issue, which I have not commented on. Quote:
But anyway, this is not analogous. The logical structure of an argument is the issue here. A valid argument form will always (by definition) generate true conclusions if you give it true premises. Thus, a false conclusion reached from true premises indicates an invalid argument. Thus, my infant analogy demonstrates the invalidity of the argument form he used. Quote:
As an aside, it seems to me that women (and indeed men) should be careful of any man who is following them, regardless of race. There was really no gain in bringing up that example, as he did, except to incite an emotional reaction (which can be reasonable, though not, I think, in this case). If we can get away from this point (since there really is no argument to be had), we can deal with more relevant things. Or return to the thread topic, though no one seems particularly interested in it. For example, we could examine other arguments for the idea that one should arrange one's behaviour around the race of others. Though, if you wish, I'll continue on the same point. Though frankly, as I say, there really is no argument there. Quote:
Also, his argument was deductive, not inductive. "A, therefore B" is deductive, "A, therefore probably B" is inductive. But anyway, this is (and has been for some time) just pedantry. His premise was never support for his conclusion. It was rhetoric. Quote:
Antiochus Epiphanes, I meant that you are supporting aggressive attitudes of course. |
|||||
April 9th, 2009 | #111 | |
Ἀντίοχος Ἐπιφανὴς
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: flyover
Posts: 13,175
|
Quote:
Survival, its own justification. but the thread topic was about whites in group, discriminating intelligently between leaders with poor character and those persons who would make better leaders. You are a diversion from the thread topic with all your rationalistic mumbo jumbo. |
|
April 9th, 2009 | #112 | |
Ἀντίοχος Ἐπιφανὴς
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: flyover
Posts: 13,175
|
Quote:
all good thoughts. the original post. larry here is distracting us, because he is clearly not in group. larry is not a white nationalist, istnt that right larry? I dont know larry, maybe he speaks truly that he is a gentile, but I do know from his words that his purpose here is to deter us from racial affinity and coordination. In other words he is not with us. This conversation exposes some of the difficulties with talking about things as if we know one another, when in point of fact most of us here do not know most of the others. I am not going to extend civility in this dialogue to a "larry" because this is the rhetorical space we have claimed, on the internet, where we have the liberty to shout down the kikealikes just like they would swarm us in the classroooms of academe for example. In here larry YOU are the "other;" YOU are the minority; YOU are the one who sings off tune. Your phony tolerance-talk smells like dogshit. But I will not talk this way to any other forum user if they assent to the core notion that white gentiles need to stick together for our mutual benefit against all the other demographics. Larry here will not assent to that will you Larry? Or maybe you will lie, because if we look back to your posts its just one trite shibboleth of tolerance-talk after another. |
|
April 10th, 2009 | #113 | ||||||||||
Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 615
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I am here to discourage people from being unnecessarily aggressive. This website seems to have some of the most aggressive people I've ever come across. Many of their claims - used to support aggressive attitudes - are false, and many of their arguments fallacious. So, I debate these claims and arguments. Quote:
Quote:
You should not "shout down" opponents, and nor should any one else. Not if it can possibly be avoided, and usually it can. If I am wrong, don't shout me down - show me. If my views are harmful, I want to know. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I never even disagreed with the conclusion of your fallacious argument. |
||||||||||
April 10th, 2009 | #114 | |||||||
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,046
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||
April 10th, 2009 | #115 | ||
Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 615
|
Quote:
And we are discussing a deductive argument, not an inductive argument. A deductive argument is like this: "If A, then B. A, therefore B." An inductive argument is like this: "If A, then probably B. A, therefore probably B." His argument is of the first form. He says: "if blah, then... you MUST", He does not say: "if blah, then... you probably MUST". Some of his premises are derived by induction, but I am not challenging those premises. Time to settle this regardless. I take it you believe that the following argument has supported its conclusion? "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" Why then, has this argument not supported its conclusion? "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" They are of the same logical form. Either they both support their conclusions, or neither supports its conclusion. And indeed this is true whether they are inductive or deductive. |
||
April 10th, 2009 | #116 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,046
|
The logic behind the reason is a statistic syllogism but the conclusion is a reason not a logical conclusion. It might look like it but it is not simply because it's quite apparent that it's rhetorical.
If I were to say I wish to live thus I must eat. Your mode of argument would dictate such a counter-argument that would create something absurd but this isn't a logical statement and neither is: "must assume based on group x is a threat" that isn't a logical conclusion that's merely a reason based on logic which is valid logic and would work for your baby example if babies were actually functionally capable of doing so. Something with no value can't be compared something with value so that example isn't actually relevant but if you used something like dogs and women sure however it isn't a reasonable conclusion as if it was logic I could easily retort. "However men are more dangerous than women and so are negroids and thus one must be wary of negroids the most",(Before you go to must assume like I said it's rhetorical since he means that you should assume because the danger level is high supporting my statement that his conclusion is one of reason not logic ) that isn't logic but reason and it is good reasoning since in our experience relatively large fractions are relevant (Such as for an experiment) while small ones can be thrown out. Your use of deductive logic for that example is quite laughable since specifics shouldn't actually validate or invalidate an argument, merely make it sound or unsound. That you are finding that you can put in specifics that somehow contradict an argument should suggest to anyone reasonable that the argument isn't of deductive logic and thus validity in that sense doesn't apply. Validity of an argument never has anything to do with its specifics so your analysis is irrelevant even if this argument had been deductive, which it is not. Basically I understand sort of what you are getting at but I feel that your use of logical validity is unjustified as we are using comparative validity since this is an inductive argument and the reasonable conclusion shouldn't apply to your analysis at all. You made two major mistakes and thus your analysis doesn't apply. By the way you should drop the baby example because as I said you can't compare functionality of a group that lacks the function completely, no result does not equal zero it simply means no result. |
April 10th, 2009 | #117 |
Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Vinland (NE U.S.A.)
Posts: 408
|
Even Jesse Jackson has admitted that he's relieved when he's walking down the street at night and turns around to find a white face rather than a black one behind him.
I could sit here all day arguing with this kike and drawing up Truth-Functional connectivity charts (yes, we went to college and took Logic, too, Larry), and he'd still be arguing about irrelevant semantics. Remember what Onkel taught us, boys and girls: The Jew can concoct ten falsehoods in the time it takes you to counter one of them. That is exactly what he wants -- for you to waste your time. DIE JUDEN SIND UNSER UNGLÜCK!
__________________
"Heiden sind alle, die zum Leben ja sagen, denen "Gott" das Wort für das Große Ja zu allen Dingen ist." – Nietzsche |
April 10th, 2009 | #118 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 615
|
psychologicalshock
Do you or do you not agree that neither the infant argument nor the negro agument supports its conclusion? |
April 10th, 2009 | #119 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,046
|
It's a "conclusion" of reason so are you asking me if I think they're reasonable? I think I have already made my opinion clear , but anyways it's all details. You have already said that it is reasonable to say that negroes are in general more dangerous so it's not about the argument anymore but rather my complaint that I do not think his conclusion is one of logical deduction or induction but reason with some rhetoric attached. There's a lot of reasonable things in our life that aren't logical.
|
April 11th, 2009 | #120 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,465
|
Quote:
|
|
Tags |
jewed thread |
Share |
Thread | |
Display Modes | |
|