|
April 6th, 2009 | #81 | ||||||||||||||
Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 615
|
Quote:
Given that I didn't specify "X", the form is clearly invalid. Things can be different without requiring or benefitting from a difference in behaviour. Was there some important point you wanted to discuss? Quote:
How you should treat black people compared to white people is not the point of my remark there. I am saying that the evidence you provided for your behavioural recommendation was inadequate. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||||||||
April 6th, 2009 | #82 |
Ἀντίοχος Ἐπιφανὴς
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: flyover
Posts: 13,175
|
Larry,
We are not interesting in your Talmudic rationalism. There is a difference between reason and rationalism. Logic itself is just like math however, just a set of rules applied to symbols. Dont conflate logic and reason. I learned that from a Jew in collage. LOL If you want to make a point about ethics which is germane to our conversation you better do so fast because so far you're just spinning your wheels aimlessly. |
April 6th, 2009 | #83 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,046
|
No you don't know what validity is, read what I said. The conclusion is valid regardless of if the premises are true. That is a true statement, look it up yourself you intellectual dwarf.
|
April 6th, 2009 | #84 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,525
|
|
April 6th, 2009 | #85 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 615
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validit...y_of_arguments
If all you have to support an apparently correct position are invalid arguments, perhaps that position is not quite correct. That's why I point out invalidity. |
April 7th, 2009 | #86 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: near you
Posts: 250
|
Quote:
You think we are idiots? You are playing a game. It doesn't wash with gentiles who know the truth.
__________________
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 7th, 2009 | #87 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 615
|
Oh, be nice.
|
April 7th, 2009 | #88 | |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,046
|
Quote:
If you need wikipedia here's what I said before in Wikipedia format: "The following argument is of the same logical form but with false premises and a false concusion, and it is equally valid: All cups are green. Socrates is a cup. Therefore, Socrates is green. " |
|
April 7th, 2009 | #89 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 615
|
"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."
"Since X group are disproportionately responsible for Y, one MUST assume that a person of X group is likely to commit Y". That's what I replied to. It is not valid. There are many examples which demonstrate its invalidity. And I posted that link because of your comment about a "valid" conclusion. Obviously you were going with a different usage, since validity of arguments is not a quality of conclusions. I don't "need" wikipedia - as if that would be relevant anyway. Stop being a wanker. |
April 8th, 2009 | #90 | ||
Ἀντίοχος Ἐπιφανὴς
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: flyover
Posts: 13,175
|
first things last larry you said:
Quote:
[quote] Quote:
distract and confuse, jewish modus operandi when discussing anything wiht a gentile |
||
April 8th, 2009 | #91 |
Holorep survivor
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The wild frontier
Posts: 4,849
|
Larry, words are sounds and symbols that represent reality, not reality itself.
High Civilisations, in the sense used by Huntington, are not compatible. The culture stratums in High Civilizations always eventually either replace the other, or separate from the other. Where they co-exist, they do not do so for long. Values, ethics etc differ between High Civilizations. There are to date few if any that are universal because whilst the acts may be the same, they are not viewed, carried out or reacted to the same way the same across High Civilizations. The Western and African civilizations are High Civilizations, are not compatible, do not co-exist comfortably, and thus are separating from and replacing each other in various areas. So far, without exception, when the African civilization has become dominant in a country, Westerners in that country are killed or flee. Without exception, worldwide. Words do not alter that reality. So far, without exception, throughout their entire history, Jews, which are also a High Civilization, are unable to peacefully co-exist with others. Without exception, Jews have been driven out, again and again. This thread like most others here relate to physical survival. You do not win arguments with us, because we aren't here to argue. Our views are in line with the reality of Western High Civilization, yours aren't. No Western group has ever survived for long living as you advocate. We describe reality for the Western High Civilization, as it has existed for thousands of years. You don't, and what you advocate has never worked for Westerners, thus is of only passing interest. Westerners either accept reality, and work with reality, or don't. Those that don't tend to suffer and die needlessly, but predictably, as a result of what we warned them would happen. If you live under control of Non-westerners, you will either adopt their High Civilization, or they will drive you out or kill you. The whole of history shows this. Wordgames don't alter reality. Arguments don't alter reality. If you don't agree with us, fine, don't. To matter, people and groups need to influence the future. To influence the future, they must exist in the future. Westerners who live under control of other Civilizations don't survive for long, the whole of history shows this, so they don't influence the future, so those Westerners don't matter. Westerners who live under control of Westerners, as we advocate, have survived indefinitely so far, so do matter. If you are a Westerner, you and/or your descendants will not physically survive being under control of an African civilization for long. If you are not a Westerner, then you are unable to relate to us, or we to you, so there will almost never be agreement, we operate out of totally different paradigms. Reality does not depend upon our description of it for its existence. If we wish to exist, we need to work within reality. The way we advocate our people live, as Westerners, under control of Westerners, has operated for thousands of years, kept our people alive, and made the West the most advanced Civilization in history. No other way has to-date worked as long or as well. Some of the best online descriptions of various aspects of what we deal with are here: Carrying capacity of Western Civilization http://www.garretthardinsociety.org http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/...e_commons.html Ethics and nationalism - Sir Arthur Keith http://www.whitenationalism.com/etext/ak-intro.htm WN in general http://www.whitenationalism.com/ High and Western Civilizations http://history.club.fatih.edu.tr/103...ull%20text.htm The culture stratum http://reactor-core.org/imperium.html The state http://www.barefootsworld.net/nockoets0.html
__________________
Secede. Control taxbases/municipalities. Use boycotts, divestment, sanctions, strikes. http://www.aeinstein.org/wp-content/...d-Jan-2015.pdf https://canvasopedia.org/wp-content/...Points-web.pdf |
April 8th, 2009 | #92 |
¡Confíeme en!
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Posts: 1,136
|
Alex:
As much as I agree with the vast majority of what you said here, as a Southern man, I have to take issue with a tiny little portion of it: For every pot-bellied, sheet-wearing, 3rd-grade-educated stereotypical klansman that the South produces today, there's an equal number of pot-bellied, costume-wearing, 3rd-grade-educated stereotypical neo-nazi produced in the north and out west. This is not as much a regional problem as it is a systemic one. I will grant you this: The South used to produce many more racialists (and of much higher quality) than it does today. The Klan of the 50s is not the same Klan of today, and the 'average Southern racist' of today is nowhere near the quality in both education and fortitude of times past. I would go so far as to say this is probably true of the north and west as well. The Kwa on the whole is producing a lower quality individual, and it's much harder to get a 'real and accurate' education. I believe this is by design. I believe that pointing out specific regions in this particular debate would be more polarizing and divisive than useful.
__________________
James "Yankee Jim" Leshkevich 1955-2008 Email - [email protected] All The News That's Fit To Print |
April 8th, 2009 | #93 | |||
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,046
|
Quote:
Rewritten: Since group X is disproportionately responsible for event Y it is more likely that a member of group X will commit event Y than group Z (Whites in this case). That is logical you buffoon (Albeit it's a statistical argument but I wont muddle your feeble brain with such concepts) . If the premise is true then the statement is valid and true. If it's not true then the statement is merely valid but there is not a single condition under which it becomes invalid. All conclusions made from this are from reason, not logic and there is no statistical invalidity here even though you'd like to believe there is, but belief isn't enough, not even close. Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
April 8th, 2009 | #94 | ||||||||||||
Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 615
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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." "Since X group are disproportionately responsible for Y, one MUST assume that a person of X group is likely to commit Y". A difference in dangerousness between groups does not imply that one of the groups is a "serious potential threat". The fact that a difference exists between groups tells you nothing about the absolute likelihood that a member of one of the groups will behave in a certain way. That is my point. He cited the difference alone. It is insufficient for reaching his conclusion. Therefore, his argument not valid. If it were of the form you propose, his argument would be very bland indeed - practically a tautology. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But anyway - "if you know that 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 man is following you, then you SHOULD indeed you MUST assume based on his GROUP that he presents a serious potential threat" There you go. Quote:
|
||||||||||||
April 8th, 2009 | #95 | ||||||
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,046
|
Quote:
As for the pure statement yes it is reasonable to assume that if a negro is following you at night then he is a danger to you, what you are suggesting is exactly why people die. It is reasonable to assume that if there is a significant chance of a black being a criminal then you have to be cautious, there is nothing invalid about this as it's reason, not logic. Quote:
If statistical probability wasn't a good method of determining the chance of something happening don't you think the whole concept would have been scrapped to begin with? Quote:
Quote:
Learn the difference between reason and logic. Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||
April 9th, 2009 | #96 | ||||||||||||||||
Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 615
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
A truer comparison would be this: I have a bag with some coloured marbles in it. Among others, there are red marbles and blue marbles. There are more red marbles than blue marbles. What is the probability of drawing a red marble? Greater than the probability of drawing a blue marble. We cannot say the exact probabilities, or even how much more likely we are to draw a red marble than a blue one, given the information provided. Quote:
Quote:
Was there some point you wanted to make here? I have said which argument I believe is invalid. You have not replied to that, other than to say my version of the argument is incorrect. Technically, my version is correct - whether he meant what he said is another matter. Either way, he should not have said what he did - because it was invalid and therefore misleading. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Statistical data does not make a valid argument. The fact that you mention them shows that you are using a different meaning of the term "validity". I have never once said that blacks are not more likely to be criminals than are whites. That is a well documented statistical phenomenon which I do not argue with. Welcome to reality. |
||||||||||||||||
April 9th, 2009 | #97 | |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Cali
Posts: 6,907
|
Quote:
|
|
April 9th, 2009 | #98 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 615
|
Not if you're talking about validity of arguments rather than truth of conclusions. The argument I was dealing with was invalid, and it's conclusion trivial, true or not. Incidently, I wouldn't say the conclusion (as stated) was false.
|
April 9th, 2009 | #99 | |||||
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,046
|
Quote:
Quote:
By the way your example doesn't make sense, if the chance is higher then how did you find out it's higher ? By experimenting? If you experiment (Do it 1 by 1) you'll get an exact number until you at least get 50% Blue or red you cannot say with 100% that the probability is higher or lower. Your argument is actually nonsense and irrelevant , well done. Even if it is true using approximations it still doesn't contradict my argument or the original argument since exactness isn't needed for the argument made merely a more than or less than. Might be a bit late to point it out but his argument actually is just a statistical syllogism so your goal isn't actually to target validity but to target accuracy. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
April 9th, 2009 | #100 | ||||||||||
Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 615
|
Umm, I did?
Quote:
Obviously not. No one has cited such information. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
His argument is invalid, and it is important that that be known. He provided virtually no support for his conclusion, and it is important that people do not make the mistake of thinking he did. Otherwise they may claim more support than actually exists. Quote:
"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. I think you are still mistaking his remarks. Perhaps you think he meant "on average, you should be more careful of black men than of white men, since black men are more likely to be violent criminals". He did not say that, and I did not challenge it (though I do consider it trivial). Quote:
|
||||||||||
Tags |
jewed thread |
Share |
Thread | |
Display Modes | |
|