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

Old April 9th, 2009 #101
Antiochus Epiphanes
Ἀντίοχος Ἐπιφανὴς
 
Antiochus Epiphanes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: flyover
Posts: 13,175
Default

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.
 
Old April 9th, 2009 #102
Larry Heinberg
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 615
Default

My, who could stand up to such a mighty argument as that? You must be correct after all.
 
Old April 9th, 2009 #103
Antiochus Epiphanes
Ἀντίοχος Ἐπιφανὴς
 
Antiochus Epiphanes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: flyover
Posts: 13,175
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Heinberg View Post
My, who could stand up to such a mighty argument as that? You must be correct after all.
You sound like a sarcastic kike. I've had a bellyful of that in my life.

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.
 
Old April 9th, 2009 #104
Antiochus Epiphanes
Ἀντίοχος Ἐπιφανὴς
 
Antiochus Epiphanes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: flyover
Posts: 13,175
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh View Post
.........


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

WN in general
http://www.whitenationalism.com/
Thank you I kept on calling back to Ygg's lessons on Keith, ingroup morality, and hadnt bothered to link it but you did. Thanks and well done. Read this!
 
Old April 9th, 2009 #105
Sean Gruber
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,465
Default

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.
 
Old April 9th, 2009 #106
Larry Heinberg
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 615
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Antiochus Epiphanes View Post
You sound like a sarcastic kike. I've had a bellyful of that in my life.
Nice defence. Oh wait, it wasn't one.

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.
"Logic bullshit"? "Splitting hairs"?

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, distract and confuse. If you're not a kike "Larry" then you are doing their work.
Oh, I'm confusing, am I? I stick to definitions, and discuss points in terms of their argumentative validity and accuracy.

"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.
 
Old April 9th, 2009 #107
psychologicalshock
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Heinberg View Post

"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.
The part that one must assume base on group isn't actually an argument that's merely a reasonable conclusion. What you said isn't reasonable. While the argument is true it is less valid than the one made against negroids. For what reasons? Simple - infants cannot commit crime at all and thus aren't valid for analysis. If you were comparing muscle mass/weight to how many push ups a person can do would you use someone who has no arms for the comparison? No simply because in a comparative analysis such an individual is irrelevant because he is incapable. Second of all the amount of crime negroids commit is significant enough for you to have the chance of mugging similar to that of playing Russian roulette, the chance for that happening within the presence of a woman is so small that the validity by comparison to our original statement is simply laughable.

Quote:
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.
Actually his conclusion and his logical conclusion aren't the same, the logical conclusion is a statistical syllogism which is valid even when absurdly used such as you demonstrated but in induction validity is more of something of as to how much. Quite obviously in this case there is no vagueness, his statement is stronger than your's by leaps and bounds. Is it strong in itself? Judging by how negroids are the most violent group in the USA yes simply because they are the "ceiling".
 
Old April 9th, 2009 #108
Antiochus Epiphanes
Ἀντίοχος Ἐπιφανὴς
 
Antiochus Epiphanes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: flyover
Posts: 13,175
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Heinberg View Post
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.

.
if by barbarian, you mean foreigner, no, I am a native white american gentile, and you are probably the foreigner. though you say you are not.

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
 
Old April 9th, 2009 #109
Antiochus Epiphanes
Ἀντίοχος Ἐπιφανὴς
 
Antiochus Epiphanes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: flyover
Posts: 13,175
Default

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

 
Old April 9th, 2009 #110
Larry Heinberg
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 615
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by psychologicalshock View Post
The part that one must assume base on group isn't actually an argument that's merely a reasonable conclusion. What you said isn't reasonable. While the argument is true it is less valid than the one made against negroids. For what reasons? Simple - infants cannot commit crime at all and thus aren't valid for analysis.
Again, you are using a different meaning of "valid".

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:
If you were comparing muscle mass/weight to how many push ups a person can do would you use someone who has no arms for the comparison?
Why wouldn't I? They wouldn't be an exception to the rule, since they would have no muscle mass in their arms.

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:
Second of all the amount of crime negroids commit is significant...
The "amount" was not mentioned, except in comparison to other groups. As the marble analogy demonstrates, this information is insufficient for establishing the absolute probability that a randomly selected negro will commit a violent crime. He did not mention the absolute probability, and I suspect he does not know it, nor even the relative likelihood that a negro will rape a white female whom he is "following".

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:
Actually his conclusion and his logical conclusion aren't the same, the logical conclusion is a statistical syllogism which is valid even when absurdly used such as you demonstrated but in induction validity is more of something of as to how much. [snip] Is it strong in itself? Judging by how negroids are the most violent group in the USA yes simply because they are the "ceiling".
I'm sorry but I don't understand what you're saying here. What is a statistical syllogism, and how is it relevant to the validity of his argument?

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:
Quite obviously in this case there is no vagueness, his statement is stronger than your's by leaps and bounds.
What statement did I make?


Antiochus Epiphanes,
I meant that you are supporting aggressive attitudes of course.
 
Old April 9th, 2009 #111
Antiochus Epiphanes
Ἀντίοχος Ἐπιφανὴς
 
Antiochus Epiphanes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: flyover
Posts: 13,175
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Heinberg View Post
Antiochus Epiphanes,
I meant that you are supporting aggressive attitudes of course.
Absolutely correct. I support aggression from the white gentile group against the enemies of the white gentile group.

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.
 
Old April 9th, 2009 #112
Antiochus Epiphanes
Ἀντίοχος Ἐπιφανὴς
 
Antiochus Epiphanes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: flyover
Posts: 13,175
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
We saw, a few years ago, the risible non-aggression pact in New Orleans. The assembled worthies, led by Duke and Black, agreed, loftily, not to criticize signatories, ie one another. It was characteristic of the low Protestant mindset that is the milieu from which WN springs that nobody at the conference audibly dissented from the hypocrisy nor pointed out that such a pact primarily would serve the benefit of protecting wrongdoers. It's the traditional WN way - close ranks against critics, no matter their criticism be factual. It's part cult, part Southern Evangelical-cultural. It is the wrong way.

Here's the right way to do it.

How to Fight with WN You Don't Like

Too many WN are of low character. If they dislike another WN, the mere fact alone will lead them to relax what ought to be high standards. That is, they will circulate any lie or rumor without respect to its truth, caring only that the stick will do damage to their enemy.

This hurts our cause. It is the wrong thing to do. It is the wrong way to act.

WN should refrain from lying about other WN they don't like. They should not allow their organs or facilities to be used to traduce the character of their rivals. Factual criticism, on the other hand, is perfectly valid, and should be allowed to be expressed, and should be expressed.

If so-called WN refuse to conduct themselves honorably, the right thing to do is to ostracize them. To explain the reason for the ostracism in neutral terms to anyone who asks, but on the whole ignore these people, warn others against them, and deny any who seek to use your facilities to promote defective men and organizations.

It is a measure of the low standads of too many WN that they resort casually and immediately to the worst sorts of lies the minute they have any falling out with a party.

WN B falls out with WN C. WN B and his cronies begin the smear:

C is a drunk/homo/womanizer/pederast/crook/drug addict.

It is impossible to overstate how destructive this casual lying is. It prevents WN from developing. We are already in a situation in which our enemy tries to subvert us and smear us to others. When we lie about each other, we make his job easy and our job impossible.

This is the reason that here at VNN you are not allowed to promote Billy Roper's White Revolution, nor Dicky Barrett's organization. Liars and smearmongers may call themselves White nationalists but they detract from the cause. Have nothing to do with them.

Anyone who participates in the smearing of another faction will be verboten here. Anyone who upholds standards, like John de Nugent, will be allowed to promote himself or his circle here.

White is not enough. There must be character and behavioral standards too.

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.
 
Old April 10th, 2009 #113
Larry Heinberg
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 615
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sgruber View Post
Heinberg's vendetta against syllogistic reasoning has reached ridiculous depths.
Sorry? Have you read my posts? I don't have a vendetta against syllogistic reasoning.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Antiochus Epiphanes View Post
Absolutely correct. I support aggression from the white gentile group against the enemies of the white gentile group.

Survival, its own justification.
No it's not. Obviously it is not. Or maybe you think I shouldn't risk my life to save a thousand Aryans.

Quote:
You are a diversion from the thread topic with all your rationalistic mumbo jumbo.
What is "rationalistic"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Antiochus Epiphanes View Post
larry here is distracting us, because he is clearly not in group. larry is not a white nationalist, istnt that right larry?
Frankly, I don't know what a white nationalist is. But I assume I'm not one.

Quote:
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.
No it isn't. And it's disingenuous of you to say so.

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:
In other words he is not with us.
And women aren't men. Doesn't mean I hate them all.

Quote:
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.
So is it a legitimate tactic or not? Obviously it isn't.

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:
In here larry YOU are the "other;" YOU are the minority; YOU are the one who sings off tune.
Heaven forbid! I don't care if I'm the minority. Why should I?

Quote:
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?
Not particularly. I don't see why one should act for one's own kind rather than for all kinds. Maybe you can tell me?

Quote:
Or maybe you will lie, because if we look back to your posts its just one trite shibboleth of tolerance-talk after another.
What tolerance-talk? I've been discussing logical validity, not ethics.

I never even disagreed with the conclusion of your fallacious argument.
 
Old April 10th, 2009 #114
psychologicalshock
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Heinberg View Post
Again, you are using a different meaning of "valid".

If an argument is valid, true premises will necessitate that its conclusion be true.
No I am not you simply don't understand what inductive reasoning is. I already said your statement is valid but less valid than mine.


Quote:
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.
That's because it's inductive logic, it's valid but it's inferior.


Quote:
Why wouldn't I? They wouldn't be an exception to the rule, since they would have no muscle mass in their arms.
Simply because there is no result to compare to.

Quote:
But anyway, this is not analogous.
Yes it is.

Quote:
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.
No it doesn't, the argument is valid but isn't relevant. You're using deductive standards for inductive reasoning and making a fool of yourself.

Quote:
Thus, my infant analogy demonstrates the invalidity of the argument form he used.
No it doesn't because his argument was from logic but from reason.

Quote:
The "amount" was not mentioned, except in comparison to other groups. As the marble analogy demonstrates, this information is insufficient for establishing the absolute probability that a randomly selected negro will commit a violent crime. He did not mention the absolute probability, and I suspect he does not know it, nor even the relative likelihood that a negro will rape a white female whom he is "following".

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).
It is a valid example because White vs Black is a much better comparison than Infant vs Woman because as I said infants are incapable and thus deductively unable to do so thus being irrelevant for inductive survey.
 
Old April 10th, 2009 #115
Larry Heinberg
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 615
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by psychologicalshock View Post
Quote:
Again, you are using a different meaning of "valid".

If an argument is valid, true premises will necessitate that its conclusion be true.
No I am not you simply don't understand what inductive reasoning is. I already said your statement is valid but less valid than mine.
Sorry, but you are clearly not using the same meaning of "valid". Things can't be more or less valid. An argument is either valid or invalid.

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.
 
Old April 10th, 2009 #116
psychologicalshock
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,046
Default

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.
 
Old April 10th, 2009 #117
TowardWewelsburg
Member
 
TowardWewelsburg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Vinland (NE U.S.A.)
Posts: 408
Default

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
 
Old April 10th, 2009 #118
Larry Heinberg
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 615
Default

psychologicalshock

Do you or do you not agree that neither the infant argument nor the negro agument supports its conclusion?
 
Old April 10th, 2009 #119
psychologicalshock
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Heinberg View Post
psychologicalshock

Do you or do you not agree that neither the infant argument nor the negro agument supports its conclusion?
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.
 
Old April 11th, 2009 #120
Sean Gruber
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,465
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Heinberg View Post
Sorry? Have you read my posts? I don't have a vendetta against syllogistic reasoning.

No it's not. Obviously it is not. Or maybe you think I shouldn't risk my life to save a thousand Aryans.

What is "rationalistic"?

Frankly, I don't know what a white nationalist is. But I assume I'm not one.

No it isn't. And it's disingenuous of you to say so.

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.

And women aren't men. Doesn't mean I hate them all.

So is it a legitimate tactic or not? Obviously it isn't.

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.

Heaven forbid! I don't care if I'm the minority. Why should I?

Not particularly. I don't see why one should act for one's own kind rather than for all kinds. Maybe you can tell me?

What tolerance-talk? I've been discussing logical validity, not ethics.

I never even disagreed with the conclusion of your fallacious argument.
Welcome back, JP Slovjanski.
 
Reply

Tags
jewed thread

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:04 AM.
Page generated in 0.13753 seconds.