Deductive reasoning thread

Use deductive reasoning to prove that the statement "around blacks never relax" is true. But sure to use only universally true statements.
Example:
>All humans are mortal
>Socrates is a human
>Therefore, Socrates is mortal

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=MRFDnfCPzpU
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>Blacks have an extremely high violent crime rate in America
>If you are around a Black you are more likely be a victim of violent crime
>Therefore, don't relax around Blacks

Ugh, excuse me? I'm sorry, I'm just a 20 year old college student, I really don't know much. I couldn't help but notice that you said
>around a black you are more likely
"likely", meaning not always. So technically, doesn't this mean that there are times where you CAN relax around a black.

Please forgive my question, I'm very dumb! (((:

>Around blacks, you should never relax
>someone is around blacks
>They should never relax
???? its not that hard

Not sure if bait or sophist

You'll only SOMEtimes get into a car accident, so you sometimes you should not pay attention to danger on the road

>All black people are criminals
>Potato salad is tasty
>Therefore Hitler did nothing wrong

AHA! Hold it right there little boy. I caught onto your trick. Your logic, I'm afraid is circular! Deductive reasoning requires a basis on archai (the first principles) which is defined as knowledge we know as decisively true.

Your first state was
>Around blacks, you should never relax
This I'm afraid, is not archai! We do not know for SURE whether we should relax around blacks, thus we recommend that we OUGHT not to. I'm not ask if a I SHOULD not relax, I'm as asking if I MUST not relax around the black. See?

NO no NO
>Blacks are unproportionaly crimanls
>You dont know if the blacks that are around are criminals
>you cant trust the blacks around you
>you can only relax if you can trust everyone around you
>around blacks never relax

This is not deductive reasoning. Please leave this thread immediately.

Brilliant logic buddy! Well reason'd! You gotta work a little on that engrish, but aside from that, kudos! Now however your reasoning begs the question to whether or not we should even relax around whites, or asians or Jews, because after all
>you can only relax if you can trust everyone around you
this would hold true for all people, no? I personally don't even trust myself!

>check'em

>relaxing ever

Found the cuck.

>There are more cars around you when driving
>You have a higher chance to get hurt by cars when there are more cars
>Getting hurt by cars dangerous
>You should be careful and not relax when you could be in danger (to preserve yourself)
>You shouldn't relax while driving a car

>Black people are more likely to commit crimes
>You have a higher chance to have a crime commited against you when there are blacks around
>Crimes against you are dangerous
>You should be careful and not relax when there is potential danger (to preserve yourself)
>You shouldn't relax around Blacks

>anyone who relaxes is a cuck
>orgasms are relaxing
>therefore, anyone who orgasms is a cuck

Blacks are less evolved
To be less evolved is to be less civilized
The less civilized are dangerous
Around the dangerous never relax
Around blacks never relax
return 1488;

>dumb people are cucks
>frogposters are dumb
>therefore, frogposters are cucks

It appears you do not have a firm grasp on what deductive reasoning is. Please remind yourself of the knowledge you once held in the world of the forms with this resourceful material that I have provided for you.

Your welcome, no need for thanks. Just be sure to philosophize ever more!

That's subjective

How isn't it deductive though?

>Humans are dangerous
>Blacks are humans
>Therefore blacks are dangerous

>Blacks commit more crimes than other races
>All humans are dangerous
>Therefore blacks are more dangerous than other races

>Letting your guard down near danger increases your chance of being killed
>Blacks are dangerous
>Blacks present more danger than an average human
>Around blacks, never relax.

>When dat Jenkem hits ya jus right.

If you know all the people around you, like if you are around your family you can relax. If you live in a village where you know everybody you can relax.

If we pull down the crimerates we can relax. First step: Kick out non-whites and gas the kikes.

>prove this inductive claim using deductive logic or else it's wrong xDDDD

go back to Phil 101, Brayyden

Indeed, it was the premise of the anti-frogposter which I took, then placing it with Aristotelian logic, I decisively demonstrated the innate subjectively in his post!

Here's tip, if you're saying weasel words like "should" or "likely" or "probably", it isn't a universal statement, and thus can't be used through deductive reasoning to prove that it is universally true that one ought not to "relax 'round the black"

>wojak hates the frog
>user hates the frog
>therefore, user is wojak

> I am in Poolan
> I never relax
> I wager we are non-white

youtube.com/watch?v=MRFDnfCPzpU

doesnt work
dont use "more"
see here even this phylosophy student aproved it

That it's not deductively proven is irrelevant since the claim is based on probabilities anyway. That's like trying to prove that your coin flip will land on heads.

>look I just finished intro to logic during my first year in college and made a thread about it im so smart!!!

/thread

>actually playing OP's game
saged/hidden

>blacks have low IQ spread and are less intelligent
>lower intelligence means more crime
>more crime equals more danger
>around blacks never relax

>you can never relax if you're under a constant threat of harm
>around blacks, you are under a constant threat of harm
>therefore, around blacks, never relax

>go to philosophy club meeting
>professor giving talk on "the case for reparations"
>his argument is literally

>premise one: people who are harmed deserve to be compensated
>premise two: slavery has harmed blacks people
>premise three: reparations serve as compensation for slavery
>conclusion: therefore, black people should be laid reparations
>"I think this is pretty airtight. Does anyone find flaw with my logic?"
>students around the room nodding in agreement and stroking their chins

that was the day I got into continental philosophy. this professor was actually getting paid to write a paper based on this argument.

>EXPLAIN SOMETHING I DON'T AGREE WITH BUT USE MY ARBITRARY LOGICS OR IT IS WRONG
OP's post

>2011
>waiting for a bus
>pretty nice part of town
>see in the corner of my eye black guy coming towards me
>thought he was just passing
>grabs my phone
>runs across the road
>call him fucking nigger
>he starts running back towards me
>gets hit by car
>i go take phone back and run away

mfw

its proveable, faggot.

daym this thread, I dont blame the dogmatics in this thread, because they are not able to reason but because they are mocking about logics.
I mean its all ok as long as you have nationalistic views, be dogmatic I dont care.

I'm actually a chemistry student. Took an online course "Great Western Philosophers" and we started with the Greeks. Fugged up in that there's much more reading than I expected. I have a test today at 8PM and its 2PM now and I still not only have some reading to catch up on but also 2 hours worth of lecture, so I'm a little boned.
My teacher is sort of based so far
>calls out the relativists of the 70s
>say they "thought" it was a benign belief
>they were wrong

This is Aristotelian logic. I understand that Serbs aren't Western so they wouldn't know about Western philosophers, so that's okay I guess, I forgive you (-:

Pretty solid reasoning. Best so far
Circular logic. We're trying to prove that blacks are a constant threat, you can't use that as a part of your argument.
Don't.
Are you jealous?

stop using more, pls