Introduction to Logic

Di quale corso si trattava? (durata/argomenti/linguaggio usato?)

Da che livello partivi? Dove vuoi arrivare?

​

Per fare pratica sul "problem solving" ti consiglio /r/dailyprogrammer (piú che "daily" é weekly o giú di li). Ci sono un sacco di esercizi e molti ti guidano con funzioni intermedie che ti aiutano ad arrivare alla soluzione finale.

​

Poi se vuoi qualcosa sulla logica c'é Un bel corso gratuito.

​

Il mio percorso: ho iniziato a programmare in GW Basic alle medie (fine anni '90), poi alle superiori qualcosa di Pascal (e chi non ha fatto pascal alle superiori? :P ) e visual basic. In quel periodo mi sono avvicinato al c, acquistando un libro a caso e poi ho scoperto che era IL libro Kernighan Ritchie. Contemporaneamente mi installavo il mio primo Linux. Universitá informatica UniMi e poi ho avuto la fortuna di poter seguire corsi RedHat grazie all'azienda dove lavoravo qualche anno fa e diventare io stesso istruttore. E ovviamente tanto, tanto, tanto studio per i cavoli miei con libri e corsi online (coursera e poi udemy sono manne dal cielo).
Oggi mi occupo di automation e monitoring.

​

>(ho visto che ~~c'è~~ ce ne sono molte)

https://www.coursera.org/learn/logic-introduction

Depends on where you want to go.

• Is it about solving problems with code? Then practice solving problems with code.
• Is it more about learning to think logically? Then learn how to do logic first.

If it's the latter, I don't recommend any particular books on their own. It's not a "natural" subject that most people can pick up with self-study. However, if you've already gotten to the point where you know the difference and how to write out a simple predicate Universal or Existential statement, then Ian Hacking's An Introduction to Probability and Inductive Logic is a great way to flesh out the principles and train you to apply them.

I an't recommend two books strongly enough for understanding the whys of geometry, algebra, and trig. Both are quite old, but they're very, very good texts. The first is Precalculus Mathematics in a Nutshell by George Simmons. Simmons was a truly brilliant mind who could explain more, and more clearly, in just a few pages than others managed to do in entire textbooks. The second is Quick Calculus by Kleppner and Ramsey. K & R were physics professors at MIT who needed to get their first year students (who had often never studied calc) up to speed in calculus quickly. The book is divided into several sections, with the first one being a brief but astonishingly good review of geometry, algebra, and trig. Kleppner was well known for making his students discover math, rather than just telling it to them. He manages to get you from 1 + 1 = 2 to double integrals rather quickly.

Once you feel really, really solid in algebra and trig, you may want to look into mathematical logic and proofs. Philosophical logic and mathematical logic are largely the same subject, and they will both equip you with what you need to start learning proofs. I present to you this Coursera course, which can be taken completely free of charge.

Once you have that, there are a few standards/classics that you might enjoy. One is The Art of Problem Solving. It is a couple of books that used to be used primarily by mathletes and mathemagicians, but which has become a little more rigorous and teaches pretty good, concise foundations. Another is the Book of Proof by Richard Hammack. If you take the discrete math course recommended below, the Book of Proof will probably be pretty helpful. Finally, Polya's How to Solve It is a great classic. Polya is one of those people who changed the entire history of math and mathematics education, so he's a force to be reckoned with. His book is a little academic, having said that.

Khan Academy will be your friend. Get really solid in algebra and trig, then you can move into calculus. Calculus is fun, beautiful, and sounds impressive when you hang around people who don't do math-heavy work. khanacademy.org

As the other person who responded here mentioned, 18.01 is a great course for calc. I think it's available on EdX if you need a way to organize your journey.

Often the first course that college students take that combines rigorous, abstract proofs with computation is Linear Algebra. The EdX course Linear Algebra: Foundations to Frontiers is by far the best first course in LA I've ever seen/heard of. There is little (if any?) need for calculus in this, though you may want a fairly strong grasp on the notation used for sets and series. There is a little Matlab used, and though the course isn't programming-based, having some degree of comfort with programming (in any language) may help. [Note: universities often require some calculus -- often calc II -- before starting linear algebra. This is usually in the name of 'mathematical maturity', whatever that means, and because calc II will force you to really re-learn set and series notation. There is little or no real need for calculus before starting LA. I always recommend that people take LA before they take calc III/multivariable calc]

Depending on the copyright laws in your country, many of the books I mentioned may be public domain.

It discriminates against a subset of black people, so broadening it to "black people" is true.

If the a law discriminates against A

then it also discriminates against a set including A

At this point I think you should give up on trying to understand what is/isn't systemic racism, and try learning logical constructs first though.

https://www.coursera.org/learn/logic-introduction

> Can you substantiate this claim with any evidence?

Yes, if it were that important to me, I could go through the 50 most recent posts on this sub, and track how many comments were used to clarify the intent/argument of the post.

> I don't think that this is true. What do you mean when you say, "the actual argument", and how is that different than the collection of premises and the conclusion?

The collection of premises and the conclusion IS the argument. Too often, there is irrelevant fluff, context, and evidence included that obfuscates the actual premises and conclusions by distracting from them by being intermixed with them.

> Can you clarify what makes an easily discernible argument different from any other argument? I feel like you haven't adequately conveyed your argument.

Yes. A massive, unformatted wall of text, for instance, requires a lot more effort on the part of the reader to not only read, but interpret which parts of wall are premises and conclusions. The syllogism format eliminates that room for error.

Often, when writing in the stream of consciousness format, posters will forget to even include some (or many) of their premises. This rule would at least force a second look at whether or not the premises were all included.

> This is an unsubstantiated claim that flies in the face of the evidence.

What evidence?

In what way do you think a syllogism could possibly make an argument harder to understand? ESPECIALLY considering it would be SUPPLEMENTARY content, not replacement content.

> No conclusion possible without valid premises.

That is not true.

If the premises are untrue, you can still make a valid argument with a conclusion (that could be false). True premises are required ONLY to produce a SOUND argument.

Here's a good course that will introduce you to the terminology and rules of logic. https://www.coursera.org/learn/logic-introduction

I'm really not following your logic. Please review this and try rephrasing your point.

https://www.coursera.org/learn/logic-introduction/

Ye habebi

https://www.coursera.org/learn/logic-introduction

https://www.coursera.org/learn/logic-introduction

There's a free course from Stanford!

Also, Nicolas Smith as a really good book, "Logic: Laws of Truth" for learning the basics about propositional and predicate logic, as well as different proof systems such as trees, axiomatic proofs and natural deduction.

I applied for financial assistance. So the late submissions would affect my grade? I would rather be done with this period from july to sep since i have more time now compared to the later sessions from oct to dec.

Edit: Just saw this on the page of the course i applied. > What if I need additional time to complete the course?

> Not a problem - course schedules are flexible, and course fee payments provide 180 days of full course access and Certificate eligibility. Self-paced courses have suggested deadlines, but you won’t be penalized for missing deadlines as long as you earn your Certificate within 180 days. Session-based courses may require you to meet deadlines to stay on track; but if you fall behind, you can switch to a later session, and any work you’ve completed will transfer with you.

So can i assume that i would still be able to get the certificate without any penalties?

So to recap your argument: two girls did something stupid once, therefore all girls are stupid and Apple is doomed because it hires women.

I found a Coursera course you may be interested in: https://www.coursera.org/learn/logic-introduction

Check out this Coursera module: https://www.coursera.org/learn/logic-introduction

I would recommend taking this course:

https://www.coursera.org/learn/logic-introduction

That course has a prerequisite

https://www.coursera.org/learn/logic-introduction Here you go. I’ll even pay the enrollment fee for you

I suspect your dad is probably trying to impart a similar lesson to what I'm talking about here, and also about being frugal in getting exactly what you need for a particular task. You've definitely caused your "practice" to take a hit thanks to the loss of computer access. I do however have a little suggestion that might help you make good use of the time since you still have internet access and be of far greater use to you than improving your speed like new gadgets would. There are things like [this] (https://www.coursera.org/learn/logic-introduction) course in propositional logic, or ones in discreet mathematics that can help you greatly with refining your best tool, your mind and understanding of problem solving.

Way back in the mists of time I did computer science, and those skills will serve you well anywhere, even outside of programming (I ended up changing direction and those skills are still amongst the most valuable I ever acquired.)

Planning a course list for undergraduate self study 'degree', and would like your input.

Hello, yet another one planning on Bachelors level studies online with heavy emphasis on machine learning and data science, i've been trying to put together a list of courses for my self to complete (and get a fancy certificate for completed courses) using coursera. So far I've come up with following list:

Learn to Program: The Fundamentals and Learn to Program: Crafting Quality Code (University of Toronto - https://www.coursera.org/learn/learn-to-program / https://www.coursera.org/learn/program-code )

Introduction to Discrete Mathematics of Computer Science (University of California, Sand Diego High School of Economics - https://www.coursera.org/specializations/discrete-mathematics )

Data Science Math Skills (Duke University - https://www.coursera.org/learn/datasciencemathskills ) Introduction to Logic (Standford University - https://www.coursera.org/learn/logic-introduction )

Data Structures and Algorithms (University of California, San Diego, High School of Economics - https://www.coursera.org/specializations/data-structures-algorithms )

Fundamentals of Computing (Rice University - https://www.coursera.org/specializations/computer-fundamentals )

Machine Learning (Stanford University - https://www.coursera.org/learn/machine-learning )

Deep Learning (deeplearning.ai - https://www.coursera.org/specializations/deep-learning )

Software Design and Architecture Specialization (University of Alberta - https://www.coursera.org/specializations/software-design-architecture )

Natural Language Processing (High School of Economics - https://www.coursera.org/learn/language-processing )

Data Science Specialization - (John Hopkins University - https://www.coursera.org/specializations/jhu-data-science)

When it comes to math, physics and possibly electrical engineering I've considered relying purely on khanacademy to fill in the gaps I have at moment.

So here's the main question, is there something you guys/gals can see that is "wrong", is there something that's missing or just would be nice to add on top of that?

Any comments/critique/your opinions are most welcome!

Honestly, I would suggest an intro to logic (philosophy type class) as a good intro. Something like https://www.coursera.org/learn/logic-introduction or alternative link http://intrologic.stanford.edu/public/index.php

It’s literally the basis of what problem solving is. As others have mentioned, you take a big problem and break it down into smaller problems. But a solid foundation I think in logic also helps frame your mind to look at problems like that. It’s also a good way to take a break from “pure programming” like learning while also doing something that would be good for you in the long run.

I think learning about logic 1) helping with reasoning skills 2) helps with programming 3) helps with problem solving 4) it’s just a great soft skill to learn more about

this is what logic looks like

Here is an introductory course on logic created by Stanford.

https://www.coursera.org/learn/logic-introduction

Ou consultar a página de qualquer disciplina de Lógica de Primeira Ordem numa Universidade. Se bem que o Coursera é mais fácil de acompanhar com os vídeos.

>Holy moley, talk about cognitive dissonance. How can anyone have a reasonable, open, and honest discussion with that sorta roadblock?

Talk about some epic gas lighting here. Wow. You havent read the Gospel of John, have you? The Gospel of John claims to have eyewitness testimony in it at least once (19:35). The burden is on the one who claims opposite of this, since a claim has already been established in the gospel. This would be different if the gospel doesn't make any claim to have eyewitness testimony, at least explicitly anyway. Same thing would be true of the Gospel of Peter, which was written in first person. The burden is on the one who claims that the Gospel of Peter does not have Peter's testimony in it. That burden wouldnt be very burdensome though.

Looking at your comment history, it looks like you sure have some kind of liking to mr.Jangles. I would be very weary of someone who quotes non-scholars while appealing to the mainstream.

Anyways, I suggest:

https://www.coursera.org/learn/logic-introduction

Logician/CS here:

Take a course in logic, perhaps start with propositional as that’s the most common/best overlap. For the practicing person this is enough, if you want something rigorous that can be used eg in maths then consider intuitionistic logic and linear logic: https://www.coursera.org/learn/logic-introduction

Flip the coin/read about bad arguments as opposed to just good/valid ones so you know how to identify BS when you see it. this book is a quick and wonderful read illustrating bad arguments (such as straw man etc...): https://bookofbadarguments.com/ *i read this in about 3 hours

I found when learning this stuff that mathematical proofs aren’t the most accessible of things to start with so perhaps tackle logical thinking by breaking proof/reasoning down into approaches, popular approaches are proof by contradiction, deduction and induction:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof#Methods

Dude... tell me where I said you were wrong 100% because you were using logical fallacies. All I did was point out your fallacies. I actually entertained your first one and answered it.

>You say we can't directly compare watching someone starve and dropping bombs from the sky. Neither of these actions were as sanitary and passive as you characterize them. Both Nazi death camp guards and the soldiers bombing civilian targets with incendiary bombs are actively murdering people. It is, in fact, directly comparable.

Ok!!!!!!!! - again this isn't an argument against my original point - argue against how I classify the people I'm talking about not try to draw a parallel and say how it proves me wrong. But ok... What I was getting at is there is a difference for humans and how we conceptualize others' deaths when you are up in the sky dropping a bomb vs watching someone wither away in front of you. If you think they are directly comparable, that is laughable.

>In other words, "I was only following orders." Which a bomber crew that dropped incendiary bombs on civilian targets would never have had to say because their side won the war.

What are you on about? This has nothing to do with who won the war. I said in my other comment I would be fine if you mourned/celebrated Nazi bombers that died doing the Blitz.

>Argument

Look I'll make the fucking argument for you... the argument against me isn't that "oh but what about the Nazi's derp derp derp." The argument against what I said is that humans have free will and saying they knew what they were doing was wrong and wasn't achieving victory so any moral human would not have done the action.

Dude, you don't know how to make a proper logical argument. It's sad you tried to point out a logical fallacy I made and just got it wrong. Just some suggestions.

https://www.coursera.org/learn/logic-introduction

https://www.coursera.org/learn/understanding-arguments

Bye

And I am replying to tell you that this does not qualify as a trap in the same context. You're seriously trying to argue that I'm just talking out of context about some other topic and at the exact same time your comment about the same topic is on topic?

While I'm here, 1+1=2, 1×1=1, and 1^1=1.

Finally, feel free to enroll for FREE https://www.coursera.org/learn/logic-introduction

He's saying that there is evidence that Obama secretly admires Farrakhan, and links to a source. The source itself says only that the two were photographed together.

So now you're saying that I can't point out that a single photograph of two people together is not evidence that they admire one another or agree with one another, unless I provide a source? Fine, here's two:

https://www.coursera.org/learn/logic-introduction

https://www.learner.org/workshops/primarysources/revolution/docs/Common_Sense.pdf

If you are learning on your own, I found this book a good place to start. It came with some good software for doing proofs/trees and stuff. Not sure if it will give a great guide for "how logic is used in philosophy"... but it will help you use logic in your philosophy :).
https://www.amazon.ca/Introduction-Logic-Propositional-Revised-3rd/dp/0130258490

2nd book in the series if you like the 1st: https://www.amazon.ca/Introduction-Logic-Predicate-2nd/dp/0131649892/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1522611084&sr=1-3

To expose yourself to other notations, etc. check out this free course https://www.coursera.org/learn/logic-introduction

If you want to get a flavor of logic in philosophy, my interest was sparked by 1. Quine 'From a Logical Point of View' and 2. "Godel Escher Bach" by Hofstadter.

The important thing is to find something you enjoy reading or doing.

> It's total BS to assert the claim that everything ever created, used, or consumed is the result of politics.

Your first three paragraphs do not refute my arguments. What the napkin is made out of, cleanliness, the cost of it, how it is shipped to stores, etc all involve politics... You can call it, "the politics of napkins". You have just been estranged from the creation process that goes into how goods like napkins are made so you think they are just magic. You have no clue of the thousands+ processes, relationships, laws, etc behind the scenes that make the napkin.

> It's total BS to assert the claim that everything ever created, used, or consumed is the result of politics.

That is a straw man and possibly logically indefensible. May I recommend this course for you

https://www.coursera.org/learn/logic-introduction

> Not for course work. Just for interest. I took a course in Rhetoric this year where we did logical fallacies. Peaked my interest.

Based on this, it means that you are interested in informal logic, not formal logic.

But if you want to start on formal logic PHL245 is the course.

If you want to self-study, propositional logic is the place to start.

this is the course you can take in the summer

https://www.coursera.org/learn/logic-introduction/

or you can read these lecture notes

http://pitt.edu/~jdg83/teaching/pdfs/Logic%20SP%202015/Logic%20Notes.pdf

https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/teaching/2000/LogicProof/notes.pdf

http://www.math.mcgill.ca/bshepherd/math240/logic.pdf

http://philosophy.wlu.edu/gregoryp/class/Brief%20Intro.pdf

For first, I know these slides are available:
http://intrologic.stanford.edu/public/lessons.php

Not sure how helpful they are without the corresponding lectures, but if it's not good enough, you could actually just take the course online:
https://www.coursera.org/learn/logic-introduction

For the second... I'd have to think about it. It's just one of those things that you get used to seeing, and then it's like, a nice pattern to have in your head. Though maybe it's not very practical/applicable.

Here is a Stanford course on Coursera:

https://www.coursera.org/learn/logic-introduction#syllabus

Or possibly this free one from MIT: https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/linguistics-and-philosophy/24-241-logic-i-fall-2005/

https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-042j-mathematics-for-computer-science-spring-2015/index.htm

> Can you prove a fact using a false premise?

You bet I can,. definition [proposition is known truth, premise is assumption, conclusion is deduction from proposition]

I live in Mumbai Proposition: Mumbai is in India
False Premise: I live in Calcutta
Conclusion: I live in India [fact]
. . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . .. . ..
I live in India
Proposition: Human live on earth
False Premise: I am american
Therefore, I live on earth. [fact]
. . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . .. . ..
Truth is, You can prove anything at will.. for the proposition Mumbai is in India, There are atleast 4000 cities that are in india.. So using those cities as a premise I can prove a fact (I'm Indian). But There is another thing.
I can also disprove it, with false premise.. suppose [I live in California] false premise, then I don't live in India. Now I've just disproven the fact. I arrived at wrong conclusion using false premise.
so You can arrive at any result (at will) using false premise
Give me a fact, I can prove and disprove it using false premise.
Here's a free course to LOGIC, that will help your Proof writing
https://www.coursera.org/learn/logic-introduction
Here's a good discussion on why you can deduce anything from false statement
https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/uhpom/why_is_it_assumed_that_a_false_statement_implies/

> I didnt ask to see what they said im asking For proof that what they said is 100% accurate

yes Euclid elements (entire book on proofs), Euclid's proof of Infinitude of primes, Euclid's lemma, the list is countless. Every single proof based on there rules of logic which still apply today (Modus Ponens, Modus tollens, Reducto Ad Absurdm)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning#Reasoning_with_modus_ponens,_modus_tollens,_and_the_law_of_syllogism

Everyone who eats carrots is a quarterback. John eats carrots. Therefore, John is a quarterback. The example’s first premise is false – there are people who eat carrots who are not quarterbacks – but the conclusion would necessarily be true, if the premises were true. In other words, it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. Therefore, the argument is “valid”, but not “sound”. This theory of deductive reasoning – also known as term logic – was developed by Aristotle, but was superseded by propositional (sentential) logic and predicate logic

Now why am i giving you logic lessons? Inductive and Deductive reasoning strictly follows axioms of logic, You can deduce anything.

> Im just asking you for proof that what you're saying is accurate.
In your proof: You assumed God (which could be true or false) and deduced that the model fits General Relativity.
1) You assumed God (true or false) I don't mind.
2) You used rules (math and logic)
3) You explained relativity in time on God's throne using General Relativity.
First of all, your proof is valid. But you have an assumption, there's a 50/50 chance, there's a god or not. Regardless, Your proof is valid. The problem occurs with the second part where there's a contradiction.
[Contradiction], If you say (all of ) GR is true, then you say BigBang is True so is Cosmic Microwave Background. That implies, Earth was formed after 9.1 billion years of Bigbang.
Explicitly; Universe began at T, Earth at T+9.1b

For a solid argument, try to assume GR in your premise (we know GR is true) and arrive at your interpretation of the phenomenon.
show GR implies Quranic predictions

> Edit:And you said the OP didnt understand physics id like to know how you got to that conclusion?
i'm sorry where did i mention that i forgot?

You can read philosophy and grasp many concepts (some easier than others) without too much bother. However, to be able to evaluate those concepts, compare them to other arguments, find their corresponding strengths and weaknesses, it would most certainly help to have some critical thinking tools in your arsenal.

So, yes, definitely, logic background would help. But you can learn as you go along, using your newly acquired knowledge to reflect on the texts that you've covered so far.

I would highly recommend Douglas Walton's books on critical argumentation and informal logic. I would also suggest that you start with the topic of Epistemology because it would help you cement your critical thinking theory by focusing on the subject of knowledge. What is knowledge? Various theories that look at knowledge from different perspectives. How do we acquire knowledge? What constitutes as justification, etc.? All this will help you understand philosophy in a much broader light and keep you in check when it comes to accepting specific points of view. Richard Feldman's Epistemology is a great book on the subject.

Aside from the usual online encyclopedias, I often rely on the following:

https://www.cs.odu.edu/\~cs381/cs381content/web_course.html

http://builds.openlogicproject.org/

There are also a ton of free courses published online, including video lectures on YouTube.

Coursera have an Intro to Logic course starting soon - https://www.coursera.org/learn/logic-introduction - and there are plenty more if you shop around.

> Thanks, already knew that

then use it.

> I didn't, Blizzard did.

no, you said "x is not important, what is important now is ..".

> Not sure what you are trying to say here but the journey is plenty difficult as is. Much harder than retail.

read it, again and again. and again. i guess the wheels have a slow start but you'll get it in the end. i believe in you.

> People used to tank with 2h in Vanilla. If you can find any proof otherwise, I'd love to see it.

[you make an assumption and want me to find proof](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)? i'm guessing you were hit in the head and never recovered. probably 90% of videos from vanilla are showing tanks with shields. its not even funny how retarded this paragraph is.

> As in anything that they aren't maxed out for. It's like freaking out that someone is having an easy time in Scholo when they are full tier 1 vs running it in pre blue set. It's a skewed situation from the start.

i guess reading is a challenge for you. maybe posting again will help: "btw the guy tanking in the clip has been tanking from DM up to SM with a 2h. you can find the vods in the link provided. so he did it even before having "THE BEST GEAR IN THE GAME!!!!!!111one"

> It's not bullshit, it's accurate to 1.12.

it is absolute bulshit since there is no 1.12 official patch notes and have mark kern on tape saying that blizzard lost the data and recovered some from nostalrius team. which links up to the fact that they have no official patch notes for vanilla and tbc on site. but hey, how about we ignore that since it can be actual evidence as opposed to "blizzard said so, it must be true". let me share a secret with you besides the fact that you're a pretentious idiot with no grasp of how a silogism or burden of proof actually works: yes, companies do lie when it suits them. they manipulate markets, audiences and bent rules. shocking, i know :). like when blizzard deleted bug reports from bfa beta that they couldn't/wont fix. or when they repost videos on youtube to hide the negative replies. or when they ban entire guilds because their own staff made a mistake. mad conspiracies, i know :)

> Good job saying nothing. If you don't like 1.12, don't play Classic. It's that simple

good job congratulating yourself. that's an exact copy from your unsubstantiated crap. you don't like your own shit? ironic. so, once more, if you don't like my writing, stop reading it. it's that simple.

> I don't know what you mean. Where did who learn what? And even then, the numbers are correct. Not based on pserver data, based on actual 1.12.

yes, elusive 1.12 that has no backup besides "blizzard said so". also, conveniently enough, with no official patch notes.

> People used to do that in Vanilla. There are a few bosses, like the Elemental in WC that actually required a shield. People forgetting after 15 years and knowing more about how the game works is going to make it seems easier.

sure they did, youtube and warcraftmovies is full of clips with players 2h tanking from deadmines up to lich king. oh wait, those are dks. and they're from wrath onward. however, once again, here's how to hyperlink since you seem to forget. dont be shy, share the videos(yes plural) that can back up your assertions.

> None of your 'arguments' have any validity.

none of YOUR 'arguments' have any validity. see? it's easy. also stupid since you need to back that up and all you can provide is "no, you!" attitude

> Blizzard chose 1.12, that's what's being used, no matter how much you whinge

just because you're emotionally challenged doesn't mean that ppl whinge

> There have been several posts over the past few days showing the damage numbers matching Vanilla videos.

yes, tbc videos.

> Might want to take an English class.

let me know when you take this so i can start up my english class :)

> Yes, nothing says "promoting traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization" like replacing the people that came up with those very institutions with Muslims who will inevitably end up destroying them.

Except that is not what is happening, you nutjob. Go to r/conspiracy or whatever. Maybe they will be more receptive to your bullshit.

>Ok, so what is the upper limit then? Clearly you'll be able to name that number since it exists, right?

There have been various limitations that de facto limited the absolute intake, which even someone like you should be able to easily understand.

> They don't have to deal with it "properly", they just have to deal with it.

LOL. Says the one pretending to be worried about not only European culture, but even civilization. Your nazi bs is pretty much uncivilized.

> And they would have, if other countries and the EU would not attack them for it,

You are delusional. They were obviously not able to deal with the situation apropriately. Of course, Nazis like you do not care.

>Massively less means 200.000 new requests in 2017.

You say that as if you got a point.

>That number was mainly reduced because countries like Austria and other actively starting border controls again

Source?

>I don't care, probably Lybia, we could easily force them to take the migrants back in, too. What are they gonna do, invade Europe?

So you want to shit on international law, our own laws, and most of the the things Europe purports to stand for? You are a short sighted dipshit, and you certainly are not a defender of European civilization.

>No, that's how it usually works, when you have 6 months of data, you extrapolate that towards 12 months by doubling the numbers you have.

Lol at your Milchmädchenrechnung.

> And the numbers in 2016 were very similar, which just proves that it's the sensible thing to do.

Total non sequitur, and you have not shown that either.

Here for you: https://www.coursera.org/learn/logic-introduction

Does not even cost anything but your time.

>You're making the mistake to assume that "ausreisepflichtig" equates to "abgelehnter Asylbewerber"

No, I am not you moron. It literally says half of them are abgelehnte Asylbewerber, meaning the groups cannot be identical. Learn how to fucking read.

> Not every denied asylum seeker is obliged to leave the country, unfortunately. That's one of the things I was getting at with my comments.

>http://www.dw.com/en/what-happens-with-rejected-asylum-applicants-who-are-not-deported/a-19426155

According to figures published by the Federal Statistics Office in December 2015, Germany has 155,103 rejected asylum applicants living with a "Duldung." Add them to the other numbers, and the percentage of people deported is still not abysmally low.

>No, again, 25k were deported, the rest left voluntarily.

"Voluntarily" as in taking financial help before leaving. They were set to deported otherwise, and if they could have easily stayed most of them would probably not have taken that money and left.

>Eithery way, fact is, there's over half a million rejected asylum seekers living in Germany, most of them for several years already, with no sign of deportation in the near future.

100k+ of which are from Kosovo and Serbia, European countries. Furthermore, what is your point? Your claim about "abysmal" numbers of deportations has already been disproven.

>It's not inconsistent, you just don't seem to grasp the diference between rejected asylum seeker and people obliged to leave the country.

Lol. Just mixing two numbers from mutually exclusive sources, and then throwing in a third number that nobody claimed for rejected "Asylanträge" and which just so happens to equal the total number of such requests mentioned before, is totally not inconsistent?

I think I am done with you.

It is free.

https://www.coursera.org/learn/logic-introduction