[–] WORF_MOTORBOATS_TROI 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
Huh, I always thought she was some kind of hispanic
[–] rejectedfromreddit [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
This isn't Ariana, but a similar example of blackfishing. Look up "Ariana Grande White" on duck duck go image search and you'll see what I mean
[–] eagleshigh 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
Her family is from Southern Italy.
[–] antiracist 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago
P1 If racial gaps in IQ were due specifically to differences in knowledge, then anyone who wants to and is able to learn the stuff on the tests can do so for free on the Internet.
P2 Anyone who wants to and is able to learn stuff can do so for free on the Internet.
P3 Blacks score lower than whites on IQ tests, even though they have the same access to information if they would like to seek it out.
C Therefore, differences in IQ between races are due to innate, genetic factors, not any environmental ones.
This is awful. It's like... Do you even read your arguments? Do you even attempt to put them in symbolic form?
P1 If racial gaps in IQ were due specifically to differences in knowledge, then anyone who wants to and is able to learn the stuff on the tests can do so for free on the Internet.
This one is weird. The antecedent doesn't have anything to do with the consequent. Nevertheless, the form here is P -> Q.
P2 Anyone who wants to and is able to learn stuff can do so for free on the Internet.
This is equal to the Q consequent from the previous premise. Since you didn't give P, the antecedent, you can't apply Modus Ponens. And since you didn't give ~Q, you can't apply Modus Tollens. So whatever strategy you're attempting is completely unclear so far.
P3 Blacks score lower than whites on IQ tests, even though they have the same access to information if they would like to seek it out.
And then this has to form A ^ Q. And this A is used no where else, and is not related to the P from Premise 1.
C Therefore, differences in IQ between races are due to innate, genetic factors, not any environmental ones.
BY WHAT INFERENCE RULE?! See, I have told you again and again that you need to provide the name of the inference rule at each step, otherwise it's completely unclear how your derivation was made. Here what happened was you gave a jumbled list of premises and then made up a conclusion, without employing any valid inference rule.
@Merlynn has no idea what any of this means because he's a tard.
@16tons has no idea what any of this means because he's a tard.
@Crensch has no idea what any of this means because he's a tard.
They are using what are familiar terms to them, and so, they get the answer right for their culture based on the knowledge that they have. These examples, therefore, show that what can pass for “logical reasoning” is based on the time and place where it is said. The deductions the Kpelle made were perfectly valid, though they were not what the syllogism-designers had in mind. In fact, I would say that there are many—equally valid—ways of answering such syllogisms, and such answers will vary by culture and custom.
Your logical relativism is even more embarrassing than your moral relativism.
[–] bunnysupreme 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago
Kim Kardashian has a lot to answer for.......
[–] AngelofDeath 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago
Mongrels hate whites the most. The abominations are jealous.
[–] Anonymous171717 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Wait, those pics are of the same bitch? WTF! Why? Did she do it on a dare?