Linder on WN Ethics (How to Infight)

[Larry Heinberg]

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.

You have already said that it is reasonable to say that negroes are in general more dangerous

Was that the point? No. Stop pretending it was.

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.

[psychologicalshock]

Originally Posted by Larry Heinberg

Well then, given your answer, I will have to assume you agree with me. The argument provides no support for its (trivial) conclusion.

Actually I disagree I think it's a reasonable 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.

It's not a logical conclusion and thus your analysis of it is irrelevant.

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.

[Larry Heinberg]

Originally Posted by psychologicalshock

Actually I disagree I think it's a reasonable conclusion.

Disagree with what? Haha, I never said it wasn't a "reasonable" conclusion. I said his argument provided no support for it.

We've been over this many times. If you won't answer the point, I'll have to assume you now agree with me.

It's not a logical conclusion...

Thank you.

...and thus your analysis of it is irrelevant.

His argument does not support his conclusion. That is obviously relevant.

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.

You must be joking.

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?

[psychologicalshock]

Originally Posted by Larry Heinberg

His argument does not support his conclusion. That is obviously relevant.

His argument does support his conclusion, it's a rational conclusion to make.

His statement provides literally no support for his conclusion. None.

X is likely to happen.
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.

[Larry Heinberg]

Originally Posted by psychologicalshock

His argument does support his conclusion

No, it doesn't.

X is likely to happen.

He never said so.


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.

[psychologicalshock]

Originally Posted by Larry Heinberg

He never said so.

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.

Yet again, if his argument supports its conclusion, then so does mine about women and infants.

It would if it was functionally rational but it isn't and I already said that a similar argument of women and dogs is possible but happens to actually be weak because as I mentioned before small chances become statistically insignificant . That is why the argument is one of rationality and invoking absurd counter-arguments doesn't actually work.

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.

Stop being evasive. And let's move on from this trivial claptrap.

To?

[Larry Heinberg]

Originally Posted by psychologicalshock

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.

No it isn't.

Do you know what the odds are of a randomly selected black man being a criminal? How many people know this, do you think?

It would if it was functionally rational but it isn't and I already said that a similar argument of women and dogs is possible but happens to actually be weak because as I mentioned before small chances become statistically insignificant . That is why the argument is one of rationality and invoking absurd counter-arguments doesn't actually work.

What on earth are you talking about?

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.

To?

The rest of our lives. I'm about ready to leave. This is absurd.

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.

[psychologicalshock]

Originally Posted by Larry Heinberg

No it isn't.

Do you know what the odds are of a randomly selected black man being a criminal?

More than one in three.

How many people know this, do you think?

Here? Everyone.
Elsewhere? Not that many.

An argument either supports its conclusion, or it doesn't. An invalid argument does not support its conclusion.

Indeed and...?

His argument was invalid.

I don't see anything invalid about it, I have already reconstructed the argument and I don't see the invalidity in it. It doesn't give a false conclusion if the premises are true so I have absolutely no idea how you derived it's invalid. Perhaps fanciful thinking?

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?

It did not support its conclusion. Stop pretending that it did. It's getting pathetic.

It's getting pathetic that you are claiming that it's invalid when you never proved it to be so. I have asked you for analysis many times and all I have gotten is a counter example which I myself reconstructed and said that it's reasonable but weak (At least my version).

Screw this. I'm not coming back. What a waste of time.

Wow I don't think id see the day when id hear this from you. But you know I am just giving out what you like to give out

[Larry Heinberg]

I don't see anything invalid about it, I have already reconstructed the argument and I don't see the invalidity in it. It doesn't give a false conclusion if the premises are true so I have absolutely no idea how you derived it's invalid. Perhaps fanciful thinking?

The infant analogy, you idiot. It proves the invalidity of that form, since its conclusion is false.

Have fun.

[psychologicalshock]

Originally Posted by Larry Heinberg

The infant analogy, you idiot. It proves the invalidity of that form, since its conclusion is false.

It's a conclusion from reason and as I said it's not a reasonable conclusion, validity doesn't really tie into it.

[SPQR]

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.

[Cernunnos]

Psy, does one argue with a cockroach? If not, why do you debate this jew?

[psychologicalshock]

Originally Posted by Cernunnos

Psy, does one argue with a cockroach? If not, why do you debate this jew?

I was mostly doing it out of boredom and to see if it's possible to drive him off using his own tiresome bullshit. Apparently it is!

[Larry Heinberg]

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").

[psychologicalshock]

Originally Posted by Larry Heinberg

"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".

Well now that I have begun studying first order logic rigorously it has become obvious why this methodology is bunk. Replacing premises to test the validity of a conclusion is a laughable method and while it looks alright on the surface it holds no water at all. Most arguments can be falsified by changing the premises of an argument and thus the truth value of it in a particular world. Validity is not tested by changing the premises around but by actual rigorous analysis of the argument. That is to say if you agree on the premises and the argument is valid (which it is) then it is fine. Larry is typically Jewishly arguing form which in itself is not a determinant of logical validity considering that it cannot be the case that if the premises are true and the conclusion is true that it is anything but true. Falsifying by a change of premises makes absolutely no human sense.
(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.

[Dakota Dave]

Originally Posted by Eilert

I feel that character is a big part of being truly White. It's the difference between white and White.

Could not agree more. How can we look at muds and claim to be superior if we are displaying the same behaviors?

[Crowe]

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.

[George Mann]

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

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

Yet, you have in one way or another hypocritically violated these edicts as you have seen fit!

[Donald E. Pauly]

Originally Posted by George Mann

Yet, you have in one way or another hypocritically violated these edicts as you have seen fit!

Georgie shows that he has a way with words on a post on the Christian Identity Nutcase thread. I have to hand it to Mr Linder. He has the patience of a buzzard.

http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=100689&page=18
50 Minutes Ago
#360
George Mann
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 110

You are once again proving yourself to be a hypocritical tyrant, Alex!