Re: on why are you a bunch of racist pricks?

On Wed, 19 Aug 2026 09:04:38 -0700, dart200
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 8/19/26 5:26 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Aug 2026 22:22:46 -0700, dart200
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 8/18/26 9:26 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 18 Aug 2026 20:52:20 -0700, dart200
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/18/26 8:50 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 18 Aug 2026 20:28:33 -0700, dart200
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 8/18/26 5:54 PM, Creon wrote:
>>>>>>>> At Mon, 17 Aug 2026 21:44:50 -0400, Noah Sombrero <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 17 Aug 2026 17:00:30 -0400, Wilson <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/17/2026 3:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/17/26 8:18 AM, Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/2026 10:39 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/26 7:24 PM, Dude wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/2026 4:40 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something both liberals and libertarians shit all over everyone's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basic freedom of movement just to keep their damned ungodly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> narratives from croaking out completely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7/8 people on this planet are enslaved to their nation state and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> capitalism will have nothing to do with solving the lack of basic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> freedom on this planet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can't have open borders in a welfare state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> i'm sorry... why can't you have a global welfare state?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rhetorical question dud: it's because capitalism hasn't been
>>>>>>>>>>>>> prosperous enough
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> basically we have closed borders and shit on the basic freedom of 7/8
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the total global population because capitalism needs to maintain
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's ungodly stupid narrative of "general prosperity"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > you people are fucking psychos tbh
>>>>>>>>>>>>>       >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > #god
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A nation is more than the dirt. It's mostly the people who live there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you allow unlimited migration against the will of the people who
>>>>>>>>>>>> are currently living in a place, that's an infringement on their
>>>>>>>>>>>> person, their humanity. Vast numbers of new people who don't fit in
>>>>>>>>>>>> with the
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> uhhh ... these aren't extraterrestrial aliens were talking about, they
>>>>>>>>>>> are also humans. i think ur the one who's lost their humanity u fucking
>>>>>>>>>>> racist tard
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> lives and ways of the current resident could (and likely would)
>>>>>>>>>>>> destroy their nation.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> the sf bay area where i'm from is 35% white, 30% asian, 25% latino, 5%
>>>>>>>>>>> black, and 5% other. i can assure you that we haven't "lost" our
>>>>>>>>>>> humanity u racist tard. in fact one of these reasons i don't want to
>>>>>>>>>>> move away from the bay is the multicultural aspect and the fact people
>>>>>>>>>>> here aren't generally racist pricks like urself...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But collectivist ideology places the immigrant above the residents who
>>>>>>>>>>>> are already there, because "muh feeeelz!".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> violating basic freedom of movement by chaining 7/8ths people on this
>>>>>>>>>>> planet to their nation states is not just a matter of "muh feeeelz" you
>>>>>>>>>>> inhumane prick
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> They just don't care about the people and the lives and that would be
>>>>>>>>>>>> destroyed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> lol, u really don't think capitalism is that powerful of economic
>>>>>>>>>>> system, eh? ur whole narrative of "general progress" is that much of a
>>>>>>>>>>> fragile pile of godshit eh?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's not racist to want to preserve your heritage and the same would
>>>>>>>>>> apply if all of the people were white or any other race.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What do you think would happen if several million Russians fleeing Putin
>>>>>>>>>> wanted to move to one of the smaller islands in the Philippines?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Fallacy alert:  ad absurdum.  You really gotta cut that out, wilson.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Um, don't look now -- but logical arguments aren't fallacies simply
>>>>>>>> because there are colloquial Latin names for them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> An "ad absurdum" argument is perfectly valid.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> creon is correct about that ad absurdum is a valid argument style, the
>>>>>>> term noah was looking for is slippery slope fallacy
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not so.
>>>>>
>>>>> ???
>>>>
>>>> Wiki calls it Reduction ad absurd um
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
>>>
>>> did u read that noah? it's a valid argument, not a fallacy ...
>> 
>> Yes, I read it.  Strange that it did not say that to me.  Time to
>
>  | In logic, reductio ad absurdum (Latin for "reduction to absurdity"),
>  | also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin for "argument to
>  | absurdity"), apagogical argument, or proof by contradiction, is the
>  | _form of argument_ that attempts to establish a claim by showing that
>  | following the logic of a contrary proposition or argument would lead
>  | to absurdity or contradiction.

Things have turned somewhat
Instead of validating a claim based on the absurdity of an opposing
claim, the use now seems to be that The opposing claim is invalid
because it leads to absurdity.

It is true that absurdity of the opposing claim does not validate a
claim.  

But it is also not true that extending the opposing claim to absurdity
does not invalidate the original opposing premise, which is what
Wilson tried to claim.

>no where in that initial definition does it mention fallacy, nor does it 
>mention fallacy in the rest of page except for related links
>
>
>> wander off into the wilderness mumbling to myself.
>
>bet
-- 
Noah Sombrero mustachioed villain
Don't get political with me young man
or I'll tie you to a railroad track and
<<<talk>>> to <<<YOOooooo>>>
Who dares to talk to El Sombrero?
dares: Ned
does not dare: Julian  shrinks in horror and warns others away