You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
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.
The welfare rate and the prison rate is a crystal clear indication of a groups intelligence or lack there of. Blacks have 4x the welfare participation rate and 4x times the incarceration rate of White people. That means they have 4x times as many dumbfucks as White people.
Nothing needs to be inferred.
Blacks also have 8x the murder rate. So they have 8x as many raisin brained fuckheads that think nothing of killing another human being.
Once again, nothing needs to be inferred. The stats speak for themselves.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] 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
This is awful. It's like... Do you even read your arguments? Do you even attempt to put them in symbolic form?
This one is weird. The antecedent doesn't have anything to do with the consequent. Nevertheless, the form here is P -> Q.
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.
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.
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.
@bojangles @sarmegahhikkitha
Your logical relativism is even more embarrassing than your moral relativism.
[–] 16tons 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
The welfare rate and the prison rate is a crystal clear indication of a groups intelligence or lack there of. Blacks have 4x the welfare participation rate and 4x times the incarceration rate of White people. That means they have 4x times as many dumbfucks as White people.
Nothing needs to be inferred.
Blacks also have 8x the murder rate. So they have 8x as many raisin brained fuckheads that think nothing of killing another human being.
Once again, nothing needs to be inferred. The stats speak for themselves.
[–] Merlynn ago
Oh,it's just you. Shitting up another thread,I see. Do you do anything else with yourself or is this your whole day?