H-help me out /p-Sup Forums

H-help me out /p-Sup Forums

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premise
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Weakling, fuck yourself.

You made your bed, now sleep in it.

racial equality should be pursued because of what? because he said so? lmao such a smart goy.

Treating everyone equally regardless of how they act or what they can accomplish is literally retarded.

B-but dystopic society...

Racial equality is a good thing, if one race is superior to another it will naturally excel, and without grounds to decry their progress as exploitation the inferior race won't have any political leverage.

Unless you're not confident in your race's abilities Czech?

People shouldn't be treated equally and definitely not based on skin but on behaviour. You don't treat a scumbag the same you treat a crusader.

my intention is not to share this world with other races

Inferior races only have political leverage if the superior gives it to them, something whites graciously gave to all the world at the cost of its own power. Now to see where it goes.

you got BTFO user

anyway why care? sci has literaly no traffic. other boards thinks that they matter and that we are cancer? pol has highest traffic, while not shitting up GB of space like /gif/ and other shitty boards. without us Sup Forums is dead. and some smug retard from sci wont change that. he can enjoy his utopian society but its almost certain that how things are now wont last.

Whites ate up marxist propoganda that the west was responsible for atrocities when infact it actually dragged most of the world kicking and screaming into the industrial era. If there is no historical case of alleged "injustice" to manipulate people with, the propoganda becomes more difficult to peddle.

Besides, if you create the legal infrastructure to favour one race over another, can you truly be confident that power won't be used against your interests? Have governments not acted against the interests of the people in the past, is that not why we're in this position?

He would have a point in some fantasy universe, but we're living in a world where for the past few decades "the blacks are doing worse than whites" has meant "the blacks deserve better treatment so they have the same level of prosperity as whites" rather than "we should treat them equally, and if they are on average worse than whitey, it's not an issue, the clever ones can still succeed."

You're not wrong, perhaps whites will wake up one day, but currently we have it rather good so there is no reason to change it. Once things start heading south and people focus more on protecting their own families, you'll see another rise in their own racial nationalism. Happens in cycles.

Treating unequal people equally is unjust.

nypa faggot

But if you really want to attack multiculturalism from a "le rational scientist" perspective, you would use game theory.

Concept of the Political by Carl Schmitt talks about this sort of.

He just threw a statement at you without any support.

>Unless you want a dystopic society, racial equality should be pursued

That's not an argument, it's a conclusion without support. An argument includes premises, a valid method of reasoning, and a conclusion.

Explain to me why a rich person should have the right to murder a poor person.

When talking about justice and the legal system, anything less than blind equality is barbarism by nature.

>Premises
If we don't have racial egalitarianism, minorities will be upset.
If minorities are upset, they will riot and resort to violence. This is a bad thing.
>Conclusion
We should have racial egalitarianism.

When I was a child, I too like to play little rhetorhical games like yours.
I've since upped my game, so up yours.

Lol, good one. Here's the thing: conditional statements (like the ones you gave) aren't premises. Premises are axiomatic truths from which you might choose to build conditional statements to derive a conclusion.

Formal logic isn't a "rhetorical game," by the way. Want some book recommendations? Until you give me a logically valid argument, I'm only going to condescend to you. Now try again.

You're welcome nerd. It wasn't even difficult.

He's atttacking multiculturalism, not multiracialism

>conditional statements (like the ones you gave) aren't premises.
This is demonstrably false. If I say "we should do this thing," and you say "If we do this thing, we will die," that is a premise. That is a statement that supports your conclusion, though you would obviously have to prove it to be true.

If you want a support for the conditional being true, you just have to look at historical context. Oppressed groups have always reacted to their oppression with hostility, particularly when they weren't born into that oppression in the first place. The misery that Germany endured between WW1 and 2 is a solid example of this.

Fucking Sci always using big words trying to make me feel stupid

This desu.

They go hand in hand.

>We should do this thing

Statement. Could serve as premise if a larger context were given. Give it the term "X."

>if we do this thing, we will die

Not a premise. Conditional statement. Give the sufficient condition the term "Y." The form is X --> Y.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premise

Here is an example of a logically valid argument:

>Premises

Most things that are X are Y
Most things that are Y are Z
Therefore, some things that are X are Z

Where "most" indicates a value of 51-100. And "some" indicates 1-100. The first two statements are premises, the third is a conclusion which follows from the premises.

Now, if conditionals were used, an example of a logically valid argument:

X ---> Y
Y ---> Z
X ---> Z

In this argument, the terms themselves are premises: X, Y, and Z. The conditional statements which they form constitute your method of reasoning. So in abstract terms what is required is a demonstration that the terms X, Y, and Z have a positive truth value.

Anyways, as for your claim that what is true in the past will be true in the future, that is a common logical fallacy of the informal variety.

So I'm still going to need a logically valid argument before we proceed.

They should be treated so BEFORE THE LAW. Yet now we are acting as if it meant they should be treated equally by everyone regardless of the situation. Racial profiling is perfectly compatible with equality before the law - what is not is increased sentence based on race. Tell /sci/ to build a nuke and kill themselves with it.

>dystopic society

Whites were acknowledged as the superior race and treated as such in the lands where they ruled until relatively recently, and those societies weren't "dystopic." Ask this pseudo-scientist to explain his reasoning as to WHY non-whites deserve to be treated as well as whites in white societies.

>going to /sci/
>ever

Pure autism at an advanced stage. Seek help