Race Realism: Critical understandings

Author: Mesmer

Posts

Total: 320
#211
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Mesmer
One cannot argue straight Trigonometry with a flat earther; one cannot argue Straight up bioinformatics with a Creationist, and one cannot argue Straight up Systemic Racism with a White Supremacist.

The only possible means of doing it, is by finding common points of agreement, logic and justification, then build up the proof from agreed blocks from first principles. 

I have no doubt you are scared of such an open first principles argument - one does not launch into a forum argument about white supremacy without having a learned of objecting to contrary data - and such a deviation would leave you defenceless and simply dependent on your powers of reasoning to defend your position.

Given that you have not been able to argue with anything I have said; not to provide an argument to contest being labelled a white supremacist - seems to indicate that reasoning is either lacking, or unvalued.







The characterization that I want to show something is theoretically true, it means it is definitely true is a fairly ridiculous straw man
- which I have pointed out as faulty from the very start.

The remainder of your replies - consisting of repeated accusations, assertions and repeated demands that I do what you want; with no justification of how or why is the very reason that my approach is necessary; if an opponent is able and willing to so wildly mischaracterize such a basic argument; the steps must be kept small and simple; so as each step can be agreed before proceeding.

I am very sorry that you are not willing or able to defend what you say, or claim; I was hoping to have a constructive discussion.

Alas, it seems you have withered in the face of someone who is trying to justify themselves; dropping everything, and finally even finding assertions insufficient to maintain the facade that you have any attention of defending your claims.

Topic's author
#212
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Ramshutu
one cannot argue Straight up Systemic Racism with a White Supremacist.
This is all you anti-white shitlibs really want to do and I'm glad you're finally exposing yourself.

You don't care about providing real arguments that are sourced and can be discussed. You don't actually want to argue about systemic racism. You just hate White people and want to slander and attack them into oblivion.

You appeal to your authorities and anyone who questions their arguments is branded a 'white supremacist' and thus is wrong because they are a 'white supremacist'. Even if you don't understand the arguments of the authorities, or even if they are disproven in front of you, you believe a magic science man is correct somewhere in the world about the narratives you believe, and thus that's good enough. That's good enough to doxx and deplatform them. That's good enough to demand reparations and attack White people. That's good enough to have a visceral hatred of White people.

And because I've dealt with you shitlibs enough, I know that your nice and cordial front is a thin veneer for this vitriolic hatred of White people bubbling beneath the surface. When I saw you were engaging in sophistry to avoid providing actual arguments, I could just smell the anti-white hatred bubbling inside of you.

And because I pointed out your lack of argument enough, because I refused to get bogged down in all the rhetorical tricks you've attempted to employ, you eventually let the cat out of the bag and gave the game away: you just hate White people.

You just hate White people.

That's all this was ever about. You were never interested in a productive conversation. You just hate White people.

Typical shitlib.
#213
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Mesmer
So let’s start at the beginning.

I label you a white supremacist because that’s what I think you are.

I defined it, showed how what you are arguing matches that definition, and gave you the opportunity to object by listing three possible questions that you could answer “no” to; that would demonstrate that you were not.

Indeed, I will absolutely retract that accusation, and apologize if you simply tell me which one of those things was a “no”.

If you spent as much time explaining why I was wrong, and why my reasoning is flawed as you did brazenly asserting that I am; perhaps we would get further.

If you’re not willing to defend yourself against the well reasoned accusation - I would suggest you stop objecting to it.


To continue: in the midst of you repeatedly telling me that I do not want to argue, that I have no interest in a discussion etc - I have come dozens of posts calmly and carefully explaining why you are wrong.

I am still patiently awaiting your response to my argument.

If you recall, we are where you are because you don’t want to argue with what I said. You’ve made a serious of objections, which I have explained are erroneous; and I have explained my justification and approach.

I am simply waiting for you to re-engage; as this far you have presented no valid reason that you are able to justify as to why what I presented was unreasonable.


In this respect I have provided the argument - however you are simply dancing around a set of nonsensical and unreasonable demands that you assert unilaterally without defending them; then accuse me of sophistry.

I am defending every claim, every point, and every single line I am stating here; in totality - whilst you are still reeling of a never ending swathe of assertions which you continually fail to support.


This has culminated in this post; which consists of a unending rant of accusations about what you feel I will do, what my motivations are, and accusations about my hatred of white people.


Nothing says “I have the intellectual high ground” more deeply than resorting to insults in response to a clear and concise argument as to why you should respond to the argument I made many posts ago.



I will repeat. I want to start with getting you agreement on the outline of the hypothesis: a broad description of what may or may not occur, how things could potentially happen, and an acceptance of the logic involved: that A may lead to B; so that I can thus show A, and the consequences B to confirm that part of hypothesis.

Without that agreement on process, you are free to object to A and B for whatever arbitrary reason you can think of, even though that objection may have no bearing - or may even be consistent with the hypothesis.

Or to give a more concrete example: 

If I were arguing with a flat earther; I would not produce an image of a mountain with half its peak missing; it can be dismissed - “refraction can occur”, or “perspective can shift the position of mountains”, etc. 

You start at the beginning and work up; you quantify refraction, quantify perspective, agree on a common set of principles and a common hypothesis, so that you can agree the conditions of refraction, the conditions of perspective so that when the image is shown - the flat earther has already agreed to the reasons the image is valid.

That’s the aim here, and that’s why I’m starting off with a simple, hypothetical question, that has a simple discussion that you seem to want to avoid; whilst going what feels like 20-30 posts asserting that it is instead I who is wanting to duck the argument.


I have a completely valid, logical and rational reason for taking the argument via a different route.

By all means; feel free to explain what part of my rationale you object to; if you can explain why you feel your approach is more likely to result in a rational debate; go ahead. Thus far all I seem to be reading is demands and assertions.

Your complete inability to offer a defence of anything you’re saying so far does not give me confidence It will be forthcoming.










Topic's author
#214
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Ramshutu
So let’s start at the beginning.

I label you a white supremacist because that’s what I think you are.
No.

We're not playing the label and Ad Hominem game.

You failed to construct a sourced argument for us to discuss. That alone is enough to end the conversation.

I'm not going to go into your sophistry funhouse and bicker over labels with you, but it's pretty clear that you're just a anti-white shitlib who just hates White people. I'll leave it up to others to agree or disagree with that, but you're not invited to that conversation.

All everyone needs to know is that is that you failed to construct an argument that is sourced. If they want to see that you're also an anti-white shitlib engaging in bad faith sophistry, that's an added but unnecessary bonus. That's the end of it.
#215
drlebronski
drlebronski's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 993
3
5
9
drlebronski's avatar
drlebronski
3
5
9
Ironically your actually playing the ad hominem game you dismissed ramshutus entire argument and called ant white black supremacist shitlib who hates white people instead of responding to anything hes said.
Topic's author
#216
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
Ironically your actually playing the ad hominem game you dismissed
I'll quote what I said to Ramshutu: "We're not playing the label and Ad Hominem game."

That means Ramshutu and I won't go into his Ad Hominem game of whether I'm a 'white supremacist' or whatever.

I directed all of my labelling of Ramshutu to audience discussion and explicitly said that Ramshutu was "not invited to that conversation."

But of course, you're too stupid to understand that nuance, so you mangled the semantics like an idiot.

ramshutus entire argument and called ant white black supremacist shitlib who hates white people instead of responding to anything hes said.
Nope.

Ramshutu didn't make a substantial argument. That's why it started with "imagine" and went into hypotheticals that don't even exist. I explained what would have been substantial, but he's refused every time. I have told him to construct a referenced argument that demonstrates the existence of systemic racism, and every time he has pivoted, Ad Hommed and/or Appealed to Authority to dodge that responsibility. The fact is that he never made an argument to demonstrate that systemic racism exists -- that's all this discussion should have been about.

I never once argued that Ramshutu was wrong because he was an anti-white shitlib. I first argued why he was wrong (based on his failed attempt at an argument), and then decided to say that he's an anti-white shitlib. My refutation of his attempt at an argument was never contingent on me affirming that he's an anti-white shitlib.

I also never called Ramshutu a Black supremacist, so you're just flat out wrong about that, probably because you're just that stupid -- you're not even smart enough to lie.

You are too stupid for politics and complex discussion. Go and play your children's game Minecraft or resume sucking your thumb, brainlet.
#217
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Mesmer
Ramshutu didn't make a substantial argument.


Ramshutu, invariably makes substantial arguments.



Argument is invariably about disagreement.

So a conditioned mind must learn to accept disagreement.
Topic's author
#218
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
Ramshutu, invariably makes substantial arguments.
Another bare assertion from a person who has never sourced anything on this website.

Argument is invariably about disagreement.
You're just bad faith in twisting the semantics to strawman what I am arguing.

I'm clearly using "arguments" in the sense of individually reasoned chunks. The act of 'argument' that you use here is different because it's referring to a practice (i.e. the practice of argument), as opposed to the individually reasoned chunks (i.e. Ramshutu made arguments).

But I'm sure you think this sleight-of-hand is so clever, so go back to wanking yourself off in front of a mirror.

So a conditioned mind must learn to accept disagreement.
Yeah and you must learn to source.
#219
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Mesmer
Every argument can be sourced.

Point of view...Source.

It's a chicken and egg dilemma.
Topic's author
#220
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
Every argument can be sourced.

Point of view...Source.
That's not what source means in the context of this discussion.

Thanks for conceding the fact that you don't have a source for anything you say ever.

It's a chicken and egg dilemma.
No.
#221
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Mesmer
Loudly and vehement protestations about how wrong I am are  meaningless.

Please explain why you think what I am suggesting is wrong: that’s how an argument works.

I have explained In great detail why and how your demands are not reasonable in the posts above.  

What is your objection? Why do you think I am unreasonable? On what grounds do you think your preferred demand is the right way to approach this?

I have explained - that a discussion without first setting our broad areas of agreement first is not possible: again, you have not offered any rational disagreement; you have not offered any argument.

I have explained why my labelling is valid, and how it is justified; and how it is not an Ad-Hom; as before, you have not defended your claims.


Indeed, you have protested and contested that you are a white supremacist: and I have offered a list of options for you to disagree with. Far from being irrelevant - if you are not a white supremacist - answering no to one of those questions would give me a specific baseline of agreement upon which we can frame a discussion: so it’s extremely relevant to the conversation.

Indeed - I have even offered you an apology and retraction - simply in return for you looking at one of those items and replying no. At this point therefore it is clear that the answers must necessarily all be yes.


In all your replies; you are yet to offer an argument in defense of your claims. 



Indeed; these last half dozen pages of arguments have you been simply trying to avoid trying to offer an argument on anything: whilst oddly accusing me of doing the same. This smacks of projection.




It’s not possible to simply provide evidence and justify the existence of systemic racism if we can’t agree on what it is, how it could work, where it came from, the social principles that govern it and allow it to work.  It’s just not possible. If you and I can’t agree on what I’m using my data to show, or that the principles it’s showing are valid, then there is no possible way we can discuss it.

Yet you are continuing to assert that this is how I must argue, and why it’s unreasonable for me to deviate. Again, no explanation of how or why that is the case.


Given that thus far you have been unable to defend your accusations and are not resorting to insults - as if calling me a “shitlib”, or for some bizarre reason suggesting that I hate where people, in lieu of having an explanation or justification - I strongly suspect that your demand to ONLY have an argument in an area in which there is no established agreement is deliberate:

It is very easy to discount or discard any data or argument when there Is no established agreement - and that’s often why people like you try and force the argument in that direction. Like the example I gave of flat earthers.

I think that’s likely your debate comfort zone - I mean, I have been giving you explanations, justifications and reasoning for everything I’m saying: you’re simply making accusations - you have not been giving the impression of someone who is able, or willing to defend what they’re saying.


This will absolutely be a sourced argument that proves systemic racism: but the data comes towards the end of that process - not at the beginning.

So; which is it to be: are you willing or able to defend your claims and accusations? Or will your reply be simply another set of claims and accusations?






Topic's author
#222
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Ramshutu
We're not going to do your "imagine" routine. We're not going to discuss whether I'm a 'white supremacist', 'racist', 'bigot', 'literally Hitler' or whatever your preferred shitlib Ad Hominem slur is. We're not going to you listen to you Appeal to Authority and call me a 'white supremacist' when I question any of the arguments. I know these routines. I don't like going into any of those funhouses. That ain't happening, Ramshutu.

Since you refuse to cease with all these logical fallacies and irrelevant pivots, I'm going to post an argument that argues systemic racism doesn't exist in US criminal justice. This doesn't completely cover the topic of systemic racism, but it's a relevant start. Now, you're either going to:

(1) Respond to it and we'll have a worthwhile discussion that's based on reality.
(2) Ignore it and continue with your logical fallacies and irrelevant pivots, and you're going to be further exposed as the sophistic, shitlib, anti-white slanderer that just hates White people and isn't interested in actual discussions.

I'm VERY interested to see how you respond.

So, here's the argument that is right on topic and very relevant to systemic racism. Up to you how you choose to respond:

Most people know that Blacks are arrested more often than Whites. Some people see this as systemic racism. Some people see this as Blacks being arrested more because they commit more crimes. I'm going to demonstrate that it's the latter using several arguments.


(1) Arrest Rates and Victimization Reports

We can confirm the validity of official arrest rates via the high degree to which they correspond with victimization reports. Using the National Crime Victimization Survey (for victimization reports) and the Uniform Crime Report (for official arrest rates), we can see that there is high correspondence (Last, 2015): 1.jpg (740×146) (thealternativehypothesis.org) . The fact that there is high correspondence is evidence that arrests being made are legitimate (i.e. not based on systemic racism, but rather actual crime).


(2) Black Misbehavior at School

Blacks get into trouble far more often at school than Whites do:

- Black preschoolers have an above average rate of suspension. Blacks make up 18% of preschools yet 50% of suspensions Education Department: Black preschoolers more likely to be suspended - CBS News 
- Black females account for 12% of elementary school suspensions, but White females only accounted for 2% Schools’ Discipline for Girls Differs by Race and Hue - The New York Times (nytimes.com) 
- A Department of Education report analyzed over 72,000 schools and found that Blacks were 18% of the population, yet 35% of people suspended once, 45% suspended more than once, and 39% of those expelled Black Students Face More Harsh Discipline, Data Shows - The New York Times (nytimes.com) 
- After controlling for socio-economic status, Black middle schoolers were more likely to be suspended than White middle schoolers The Color of Discipline: Sources of Racial and Gender Disproportionality in School Punishment (ccsd.net) 

A potential counter-argument to this is that teachers have racial bias against Blacks. However, there is strong evidence against this. When comparing Blacks and Whites with the same number of previous behavioral problem, both groups were as likely to be suspended Prior problem behavior accounts for the racial gap in school suspensions - ScienceDirect . Also, Blacks and Whites were equally likely to face suspension if they were sent to the principal's office The Color of Discipline: Sources of Racial and Gender Disproportionality in School Punishment (ccsd.net)  .

Due to differences in Black crime rates reflecting the non-biased rate in which Blacks get in trouble at school, this adds evidence to the U.S. criminal justice system being legitimate.


(3) Drug Crime

Some people claim that Blacks do less drugs than Whites, but Blacks are arrested more, therefore systemic racism exists.


Secondly, Blacks are more likely to buy drugs outdoors than White people (which is riskier in terms of being caught) at 0.31 correlation versus White's 0.14. Blacks are about three times likely to buy from a stranger (0.3 versus 0.09). Blacks are also significantly more likely to buy away from their homes (0.61 versus 0.48) Racial differences in marijuana-users' risk of arrest in the United States - PubMed (nih.gov) . This riskier buying of drugs makes Blacks more likely to be caught.

Lastly, a report from the Justice Department found that Blacks are more likely to use drugs than Whites, use more dangerous drugs than Whites, and are more likely to take drugs in areas with high crime rates The Racial Disparity in U.S. Drug Arrests (ojp.gov) . 

Based on the research, it is wise to assume that Blacks getting arrested more for drug use is a result of their higher drug usage (despite them lying about it), taking drugs in riskier areas, and buying drugs in riskier places.


(4) Police Brutality

It has become popular in some circles to claim that police are disproportionately brutal/murderous against Blacks. The data shows otherwise.

Using the National Crime Victimization Survey and the Uniform Crime Report like we did in point (1), we see that Blacks account for about 1/3 of rape and assaults, over half of robbery crimes -- the two data points agree (thus Blacks are being arrested as much as you would expect, given the amount of crime they do).

Also, using the Uniform Crime Report only, we see that Blacks are about 1/2 of the murderers, 38% of violent crime, and 29% of people arrested FBI — Table 43 . Given these facts, if police only killed criminals who posed a serious threat to society, and if these criminals were on average equally likely to be killed by police, we would expect people killed by police to be Black between 29% and 38% of the time.

Using other data points to see if people killed by police are Black 29-38% of the time, we have an analysis of Uniform Crime Report data which shows 32% of those killed by police were Black Police Killings of Blacks: Here Is What the Data Say - The New York Times (nytimes.com) . Another analysis of data found 30% Microsoft Word - Moskos 2015 why be a cop.docx (petermoskos.com) . Therefore, Blacks are indeed being killed at about the rate you'd expect based on the percentage of Blacks who are violent criminals (which means that based on this data, officers aren't being biased against Blacks).


(5) Unfair Sentencing

When controlling for how Blacks present themselves in courtrooms, how likely he/she will commit another crime in the future, Verbal IQ and self reported history of violence, we see that there is no unjust racial sentencing gap No evidence of racial discrimination in criminal justice processing: Results from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health - ScienceDirect . 


Conclusion

For the above reasons, we should reject the notion of "systemic racism" in the U.S. criminal justice system as being a myth.

Arguments largely copied from Ryan Faulk and Sean Last's works. Credit should go to them.

#223
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Mesmer
For someone interested in a debate, you sure do have a fairly comprehensive list of all the things you refuse to discuss, and won’t debate. And for someone who is interested in debate and unwilling to talk about ad Homs and labels - you seem solely preoccupied with calling people names and labelling. The irony is not lost on me.


Likewise, you’ve again refused to justify anything you’ve said.

So let’s explain why this is necessary. Let’s take your post.


Broadly speaking, your post lists a set of facts that show that various inequalities of the justice system are derived from black behaviour - and as a result cannot be systematically racist.

Good starting point; the best place to start an intelligent discussion is by assuming everything your opponent says is true, and working back. So let’s do that:

Doing that reveals the assumption inherent in your post: which is that individual behaviour is fully isolated from the socioeconomic system - IE: that everything people do is a product of and solely Influenced by, inherent factors of them.

Your data and argument is meaningless if that assumption is false ; if the system itself is influencing behaviour of individuals through various socioeconomic pressures. Right?


IE: that if African Americans are more likely to be criminals - that is solely down to them, and is not influenced by other factors.

I don’t think that assumption is valid. And inherently, we have to get an agreement on that assumption before we even get to the data or analysis - because the conclusions of the data are inherently based upon it. Right?


So that’s the best approach: to come up with an argument that challenges the underlying assumption of your argument. Debate 101.

Hope you’re keeping up!


So how do I do that? Well, I could advance multiple socioeconomic theories, and ask you to debunk them one by one - but that would be long winded and require substantial effort and time for both of us.

The best use of time is to through our an alternate hypothesis: how socioeconomic factors can influence behaviours. 

Rather than arguing in complete abstract, I can create a hypothesis about various socioeconomic policies and their impact - that could explain ALL that data with a different underlying assumption. Right?

That way, I can both challenge the assumption, provide an alternative assumption, and set up a framework for not only how all those things could be true with systemic racism, but also to set up a framework for providing evidence and justification about how it happened.

That’s a legitimate approach to challenging your assumptions, right?

So: I could alternatively, just throw our all my data - but that’s all based on my assumptions which I have not yet justified and we do not agree on. If you judge my data on other assumptions; there’s no ability to get anywhere. Right?


So in that case; the best approach is for me to try and convey my underlying hypothesis for how society has worked could explain the facts and invalidate your assumptions.

I can then ask you whether the hypothesis is reasonable, and we can go from there with a few to coming up with an appropriate agreed assumption upon which all the data can be assessed.

Sound like a plan? Okay. Cool. Perfect. Let’s do that:

Imagine, for a moment, a systemically racist system over a period of more than 100 years that puts policies in place to overtly criminalize, financially and politically disadvantage, and facilitate the social decohesion of a given race.

When those overt policies are taken away; you can replace them with policies and behaviours that maintain that criminalization, financially and politicial disadvantage, and the social de-cohesion; - identical effects on those races - and simply blame it on non race related things

Have you caused the loss of generational wealth in a race, tied schools to the local area, precipitated white flight? Will the cycle of poverty will keep that going?

Did you over police black neighbourhoods because you criminalize being black, and overtly criminalize drugs used by African Americans over those used by whites, and used it to precipitate a period of mass incarceration; that damaged the generational social fabric? Well now you don’t have to pretend that blacks are dangerous criminals; the poverty, lack of schools and break down of the social fabric of many cities - that one will keep taking care of itself too. Right?

I mean: if you overpolice where there is most crime, arrest innocent people in that area that fit a description, or fit a criminal profile, or police them in a way that is more likely to lead to a detection of a crime , force them to plea bargain because they’re poor; send them to prison, give them tough parole conditions that makes it hard to hold down regular inflexible jobs they could find as an ex-con once they leave; then throw the book at them if they then turn to crime, or violate parole; breaking up families, leading to social de-cohesion that then increases poor behaviour at school, and can increase criminality - you only have to do it for so long before you can say you’re only criminalizing them because they’re criminals - ignoring that the criminality is in part historically because they have been criminalized...
Topic's author
#224
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Ramshutu
For someone interested in a debate, you sure do have a fairly comprehensive list of all the things you refuse to discuss, and won’t debate. And for someone who is interested in debate and unwilling to talk about ad Homs and labels - you seem solely preoccupied with calling people names and labelling. The irony is not lost on me.
Calm down.

You and I aren't doing the label game together.

That's the end of that.

Likewise, you’ve again refused to justify anything you’ve said.
You haven't demonstrated this.

Broadly speaking, your post lists a set of facts that show that various inequalities of the justice system are derived from black behaviour - and as a result cannot be systematically racist.

Good starting point; the best place to start an intelligent discussion is by assuming everything your opponent says is true, and working back. So let’s do that:
You don't have any counter-arguments to it, so let's not pretend like you're being generous. In fact I challenge you to address any of the arguments made there. You probably won't/can't because none of what you argue is data-driven, and hence being able to deal with the argument I made at an atomic level is beyond your capability.

Doing that reveals the assumption inherent in your post: which is that individual behaviour is fully isolated from the socioeconomic system - IE: that everything people do is a product of and solely Influenced by, inherent factors of them.

Your data and argument is meaningless if that assumption is false ; if the system itself is influencing behaviour of individuals through various socioeconomic pressures. Right?
Yeah it is an assumption because it's true. You don't know it's true because you work in "imagine" narratives that refuse to look at the data/research/studies on the topic. This is why your "imagine" narratives and hypothetical arguments that are based on what doesn't exist are false and a waste of time. Anyway, here's the relevant quote from the data-driven argument:

"However, many studies do not find that poor areas have higher than average crime rates or that an area’s crime rates rise when it’s economic situation worsens. Further still, the mean effect size reported for the relationship between crime and poverty is small, suggesting a weak statistical association. Concerns about the direction of causality, as well as evidence from certain natural experiments, cast further doubt that poverty has any meaningful causal impact on crime."


IE: that if African Americans are more likely to be criminals - that is solely down to them, and is not influenced by other factors.

I don’t think that assumption is valid. And inherently, we have to get an agreement on that assumption before we even get to the data or analysis - because the conclusions of the data are inherently based upon it. Right?
Nobody should care about what you think is "valid" because your arguments aren't based on anything objective.

So how do I do that? Well, I could advance multiple socioeconomic theories, and ask you to debunk them one by one - but that would be long winded and require substantial effort and time for both of us.
No, that would be well worth our time because that would attempt to be an argument based on the real world. For whatever reason, you don't want to do that, and hence you don't have the arguments you need to support your case. People should reject your arguments on this fact alone.

I've already referenced the data-driven argument above that shows SES environment isn't nearly the factor you think it is, and is arguably not a factor.

The best use of time is to through our an alternate hypothesis: how socioeconomic factors can influence behaviours
[...]
[trying to take me into your funhouse]
Incorrect.

No "hypothesis" is required. No "imagine" speech needs to be considered.

We have the data/research/studies already provided. The data/research/studies directs us to a conclusion that SES factors don't have the correlation impact that you'd guess they'd have (and you guessed because it appears you've never read any actual data/research/studies on this topic). That's the reality.

I made it very clear we're not going into your funhouse wherein you post only random hypotheticals that aren't data-driven, or we get super deep into whether a label is correct or not.

No funhouse adventure for me, thank you.

We are only going to discuss reality.
#225
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Ramshutu
a discussion without first setting our broad areas of agreement first is not possible: again, you have not offered any rational disagreement; you have not offered any argument.
Well stated.
#226
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Mesmer
As I stated.

Everything has a source.



A source is a previously derived idea....Is a previously derived idea...Is a previously derived idea....And so on.


You are too bogged down in formality.

OK in debate, but not a necessity of the FORUM.

As if I have the time and the commitment to source every FORUM post I make.
Topic's author
#227
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
As I stated.

Everything has a source.
You are wasting everyone's time with these dodgy semantics.

I clearly meant source as in a link to a study/data/research.

Stop being obtuse.

OK in debate, but not a necessity of the FORUM.

As if I have the time and the commitment to source every FORUM post I make.
This is just an excuse to make bad arguments. Good arguments can and should be constructed anywhere.

You are making bad arguments devoid of any sources.

Unless you're trying to be a troll, you should stop doing that.
#228
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Mesmer
The real problem is.

You think that YOU produce the  good arguments.

And that anyone who proposes a counterargument, therefore proposes a bad argument.

It's what's known as intolerance of any alternative point of view.

Under these circumstances, sourcing is completely irrelevant anyway.


You're forgetting that there are two sides to every argument.
#229
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Mesmer
So let’s recap.

I’ve provided an argument for you to engage with. You still refuse to engage.

Instead - you falsely assert that discussing a hypothesis of how reality is, is an invalid way to discuss how reality is. 

I’ve walked you through exactly discussion on the validity of a hypothesis is a wholly valid approach. You’ve ignored it.

I’ve walked you through how a discussion on facts and data - without agreement on the underlying assumptions cannot generate an intelligent discussion. You’ve ignored it. 

To reiterate - a hypothesis about the real world - is taking about the real world. We are both talking about our own hypotheses; to unilaterally declare I am not allowed to present a counter hypothesis is clearly disingenuous.

In fact, far from being irrelevant: thought experiments, hypotheses, and hypothetical scenarios are absolutely critical to allow two people to explore the logic underpinning behind conclusions. Despite this being continually pointed out - you have yet to offer any argument to support it.


As well as reiterating the same argument I have already replied to - you further demonstrate exactly why we need to start at the bottom and work up: in reply to me questioning your assumption, you simply fire back what you think my entire hypothesis is; allowing an opponent to simply snipe at straw men; rather than argue. What you’re demanding appears targeted to enable disingenuous arguments.


Throughout this back and forward consisting of me constructing a logical argument and you ignoring or rejecting it - and demanding that you will only respond to specific forms of tightly constrained arguments, you have been declaring that I will not present facts - as pointed out, this is a straw man: as I am being straight forward that I will be presenting facts once we have a common basis of agreement. That you continue to peddle the strawman despite having been corrected is disingenuous. This is on top of you having also accused me of not wanting to argue. This is also clearly disingenuous.



I have explained that you appear to be a white supremacist; a point I have justified at length, you have ignored it; and instead have simply dismissed it.

I can even explain why is important: specifically labelling your beliefs and the premises of your world view - helps to frame the discussion in the context of those premises. It helps ascertain your inherent beliefs as they pertain to this topic rather than having to guess them.

Trying to engage in an argument whilst trying to hide or obfuscate the key premises and beliefs you hold is disingenuous in a discussion that is explicitly about some aspect of those beliefs.

The final aspect here; is that trolls, edge lords, nondescript antagonists and sh*tposters with extreme beliefs and are uninterested in real discussion often attempt to hide their true worldview, or beliefs in order to suck people into a debate without being explicitly clear about who they’re arguing with; or being on guard that the question or goal of the conversation maybe loaded.

As I explained, your beliefs make you a white supremacist: there is no reason or justification for you not to call me out and destroy my argument by demonstrating you are not through explaining what aspect of white supremacy you don’t ascribe too - I even gave you a simple way of showing it that would lead to retraction and an apology: and would even help me narrow down the premises of your worldview in order to help know in which direction to drive the argument.

Not defending yourself, and now simply dismissing the label with half hearted denials seems to confirm that you are a white supremacist.

Given that you are a white supremacist, this conversation is about a key aspect of white supremacy, and you won’t clarify whether you hold white supremacist premises that critical to framing this arguments leads me to conclude that your doing it to maintain a facade that these threads are being made in good faith. This would be disingenuous.

In between all this - you’ve called me a shitlib, engages in broad sweeping generalizations of what I am and what I believe; suggested I hate white people with absolutely no supporting argument.

To then declare you won’t engage in an Ad Hom Labelling - which is clearly not what I’m doing is disingenuous.

Indeed, continuing to assert that I am engaging in Ad-Homs despite having corrected you in what they are and how they work multiple times; and simply repeat the claim is also disingenuous.


A key element of free form debate is that both sides must accept the premise that you present logical justification, and attack the other persons logical justification with your own.

The final nail in the coffin here - is that you seem to be systematically unable to do so. While you seem to object to this characterization, and suggest that I haven’t been able to demonstrate (I mean, how is it possible to show that you’re arguments do not contain something).

You’re having to resort to accusations, repeating the already refuted points, and outright denials to try and argue your point. All the way through here, you have simply skipped over points or logic with a wave of the hand, or angry declaration that you will not debate some aspect of my detailed argument.

In many ways, it’s not possible to argue against someone who is simply unable to do much else than scream at how wrong everyone else.


At this point, I think the evidence of what and how you’re arguing is self evident and we can draw a hypothesis for it:

You are a white supremacist who has entered these forums under the fig leaf of wanting a discussion, whilst in reality you’re disingenuous structure, style and approach gives the appearance that you’re not here in good faith. The nature of the argument is constructed to preclude any decent argument, and is angled so that you can easily dismiss claims through straw man sniping, or exploiting the lack of common assumptions; or, simply rejecting complex, or difficult arguments out of hand for silly reasons. 

When someone tries to engage with structured argument that isn’t as you want it to be, as you are used to arguing in a bad faith structure, rather than constructing logical counters - You are unable to defend yourself and are forced to resort to clearly Disingenuous non engagement; whilst desperately trying to move the conversation back to the type of simple assumption baiting that is simpler and easier. 

This bad faith, disingenuous behaviour on your part, which I’m sure will continue - is exactly why we can only begin with discussing lower level assumption, hypothesis to gain a broad agreement of what is possible, before we do anything more. 



I will break down the simplest and best way for you to respond.

Take my claims; take what I’ve said and explain why they’re wrong.

Why shouldn’t we talk about hypotheses related to the real world? What about my description of how an argument would go without establishing a common set of assumptions invalid?

Why is my characterization of you being a white supremacist unfair or unreasonable - why is my justification unreasonable?

The continued lack of whys in all of your replies here is the reason I am more insistent that my approach is the only valid way to continue.
Topic's author
#230
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Ramshutu
Lol back to the sophistry.

You haven't provided any arguments worth addressing. You originally pushed the idea that systemic racism exists, and you've failed to meet that burden of proof since then.

Instead, you've provided a whole bunch of sophistry, ranging from Ad Hominems, Appeals to Authority, "imagine" speeches not based on reality, hypotheticals that are totally devoid of any data/studies/sources -- pretty much everything you've posted is just a massive red herring and a waste of everyone's time. And you can keep writing these walls of texts and cleverly weaving in all these garbage red herring arguments, but I won't ever fall for it and I will continue to call it out.

I've been charitable and provided arguments that show systemic racism doesn't exist in various places (criminal justice), and you've basically said 'what about low SES?' whilst not providing an argument that shows that low SES results in systemic racism. I asked you to make that argument (since it would potentially fill your BoP and we could have a discussion thereafter), and you haven't at all.

But for the dozen responses you've given me, all you've done is pile on the sophistry with irrelevant deflections and avoidance or real argument. You are a shitlib, anti-white sophist not at all interested in actually discussing the topic of systemic racism, because you haven't and probably will never provide any arguments to fill your burden of proof. You want to deflect onto Ad Hominem "white supremacist" discussion and non-BoP fulfilling "imagine" speeches. You want to talk in hypotheticals that could fulfil your burden of proof but never actually attempt to fulfil that burden of proof. You want to do that endlessly and do anything but actually talk about the topic in a substantive sense.

It's time for you to leave the thread, sophist. You've been called out and confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt that you're a bad faith, shit lib sophist.

Get out of here.
Topic's author
#231
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
The real problem is.

You think that YOU produce the  good arguments.

And that anyone who proposes a counterargument, therefore proposes a bad argument.

It's what's known as intolerance of any alternative point of view.

Under these circumstances, sourcing is completely irrelevant anyway.


You're forgetting that there are two sides to every argument.
You just post a bunch of claims without sources. I called you out on it and you're refusing to fix that.

Either start sourcing your claims or I'll continue to call you out on it.

There's nothing more to discuss on this.
#232
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Mesmer
Or perhaps you suffer from SFD.

SOURCE FIXATION DISORDER.
Topic's author
#233
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
Or perhaps you suffer from SFD.

SOURCE FIXATION DISORDER.
Yes, wanting to affix credible sources to claims should be considered a mental disorder.

You clearly don't suffer from it.
#234
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Mesmer
I consider my own personal source to be credible enough in a Forum conversation. Where one generally, only tends to proffer a personal opinion.

In a Forum conversation I only really deem it necessary to back up specific stats or attribute specific quotes.


If for example, one is simply exchanging philosophical, political or religious opinion, then sources tend to be nothing more than arbitrary and secondary opinion often relative to a bias.


You should have confidence in your own knowledge, which is already acquired from sources anyway.


#235
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Mesmer
This thread has been typified by me making an argument - you shouting at me - me addressing your accusations - you ignoring it and shouting at me again - me patiently walking you through the logic - you simply shouting the same thing again.

Argument is about showing how someone is wrong - not simply asserting they are wrong and proudly suggesting you will ignore their arguments and hoping they will go away.

Fine. Let’s start the Fallacy accumulator!


You haven't provided any arguments worth addressing. 



False. assertion: (1)
Disproven in posts 199, 202, 204, 206, 211, 213, 221, 223: you have not offered a response.


You originally pushed the idea that systemic racism exists



False - Mischaracterization (2). You have shut down all of my attempts to discuss systemic racism because I have taken a constructive approach. As noted in posts 199, 202, 204, 206, 211, 213, 221, 223 : you have not offered a response.
and you've failed to meet that burden of proof since then.



False - Mischaracterization (3). Burdens are met or failed at the end of an argument - not at the start; which is where we you have bogged things down.


Instead, you've provided a whole bunch of sophistry



False assertion (4) my approach is valid as explained in posts 199, 202, 204, 206, 211, 213, 221, 223: you have not offered a response.

False: assertion and Hypocrisy (5) as explained in post 229: your behaviour, and approach appears clearly disingenuous so accusations of sophistry are clearly hypocrisy.


ranging from Ad Hominem.



False: assertion (6) : not Ad Homs. As demonstrated in posts 202, 204, 206, 229: you have not provided a response.I have demonstrated why they are not. 



Appeals to Authority



False: assertion(7): How? Where? When?

I have at no point in any of this thread ever suggested that any argument should be accepted due to the credentials or authority of someone else.


“imagine" speeches not based on reality, 



False assertion (8). Based on reality as explained in posts 199; and valid based on 202, 204, 206, 211, 213, 221, 223, : you have offered no response.

hypotheticals that are totally devoid of any data/studies/sources 


False: fallacy of many questions (9). Asking questions with presuppositions that have not been agreed. Disproven in posts 199, 202, 204, 206, 211, 213, 221, 223: you have offered no response.


pretty much everything you've posted is just a massive red herring and a waste of everyone's time. 



False: assertion: (10) Disproven in posts 199, 202, 204, 206, 211, 213, 221, 223: you have offered no response


And you can keep writing these walls of texts and cleverly weaving in all these garbage red herring arguments, but I won't ever fall for it and I will continue to call it out. 



Ad Hominem attack.(11). Simply attacking me for how I make valid arguments as opposed to attacking the argument.


I've been charitable and provided arguments that show systemic racism doesn't exist in various places (criminal justice), and you've basically said 'what about low SES?' 


False: straw man (12). You mischaracterize me offering an explanation of why we cannot discuss systemic racism without first agreeing on certain central premises. Disproven in posts : 199, 202, 204, 206, 211, 213, 221, 223you have offered no response.

whilst not providing an argument that shows that low SES results in systemic racism. 


False strawman (13): same straw man as above (12) mischaracterizes my argument - which was showing why we can’t have an argument unless we agree on common premises.

I asked you to make that argument (since it would potentially fill your BoP and we could have a discussion thereafter), and you haven't at all.


False: mischaracterization (14): disproven in posts 199, 202, 204, 206, 211, 213, 221, 223: you have offered no reply. To have a discussion, we must agree basic aspects of reality; this is where you are holding up the argument.


But for the dozen responses you've given me, all you've done is pile on the sophistry with irrelevant deflections and avoidance or real argument. 


False: assertion(15) disproven in posts 199, 202, 204, 206, 211, 213, 221, 223.

Ad Hominem attack(16) calling me names is not a valid argument.

You are a shitlib, anti-white sophist not at all interested in actually discussing the topic of systemic racism


Ad Hominem attack (17) calling me names is not a valid argument.

because you haven't and probably will never provide any arguments to fill your burden of proof. 


False assertion (18), you haven’t given me the opportunity to do so as you are dismissing my arguments out of hand.

You want to deflect onto Ad Hominem "white supremacist" discussion 


Argument from repetition (19).

False assertion (20) - not an ad Hom (see posts 202, 204, 206, 229), also it’s in addition to the argument, not Deflecting from it.


and non-BoP fulfilling "imagine" speeches. 


False, assertion (21) - see posts: 199, 202, 204, 206, 211, 213, 221, 223 - hypothetical scenarios as a means to agree common premises about reality are valid in arguments.

You want to talk in hypotheticals that could fulfil your burden of proof but never actually attempt to fulfil that burden of proof. 


False: assertion (22). As noted, I want you to answer the argument so we can move on to the next part.

False: strawman (23). You mischaracterize my argument, pretending that it was incensed to be a top-to bottom attempt to justify systemic racism, rather than as a starting point in the argument.


You want to do that endlessly and do anything but actually talk about the topic in a substantive sense.



False: assertion (24). As shown in posts: 199, 202, 204, 206, 211, 213, 221, 223, my argument is the only way we can have a substantive argument. 

False: assertion (25). As explained - you are holding  upthis discussion by loudly and vehemently stating you won’t reply to my argument.


It's time for you to leave the thread, sophist. You've been called out and confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt that you're a bad faith, shit lib sophist.

Get out of here.




Ad Hominem attack (26), attacking me rather than the argument.

Argument from repetition (27) - you already said all this.


So, 27 false arguments in one single post. Noice.

Topic's author
#236
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
I consider my own personal source to be credible enough in a Forum conversation.
Well I don't. You need to make your arguments objectively verifiable, otherwise there's no reason to believe what you say.

Where one generally, only tends to proffer a personal opinion.
Everyone has a "personal opinion" about things. Based on that, I guess everyone is right about everything -_-

In a Forum conversation I only really deem it necessary to back up specific stats or attribute specific quotes.
I've never seen you source or link anything.

Like ever.

If for example, one is simply exchanging philosophical, political or religious opinion, then sources tend to be nothing more than arbitrary and secondary opinion often relative to a bias.
This had nothing to do with philosophy or religious opinion.

This is what you said: "Ramshutu, invariably makes substantial arguments." Race Realism: Critical understandings (debateart.com)

That's just you saying something, not backing it up with anything, and now justifying it with ad hoc rationalization because you're too useless to make better arguments.

You should have confidence in your own knowledge, which is already acquired from sources anyway.
The whole point of making arguments is to make them objectively correct, especially when you are not on the spot and can spend literally days researching and double-checking what you say.

If you can't be bothered to make worthwhile arguments, don't talk to me.
Topic's author
#237
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Ramshutu
The fact is that you haven't proven systemic racism exists.

I strongly suspect you haven't/won't because you're a sophist who just hates White people, and you're not looking for a real discussion.

You might as well just leave.
#238
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Mesmer
The fact is that you haven't proven systemic racism exists.
Mischaracterization (28): I have offered a starting point argument; which you have refused to consider, which will then be used to build a case for systematic racism after building up a common set of agreed principles. You have refused to argue.

I strongly suspect you haven't/won't
False: assertion(29): I am awaiting your response to the initial argument; you have spend dozens of posts trying to evade answering, and launching into an ever decreasing tailspin of angry assertions about why you don’t want to respond to valid arguments.

because you're a sophist who just hates White people, and you're not looking for a real discussion.
Ad Hominem attack (30): name calling isn't a substitute for an argument.

You might as well just leave.

Argument by repetition (31):  you have simply restated your arguments from the last post.

If you pay attention, I have outlined all my posts that I have made that cover your specific objections in detail.


At some point, you may want to consider actually providing a response to actual arguments, rather than to spend your time trying to assert reasons why you are allowed to ignore reasoned logic.





Topic's author
#239
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Ramshutu
I have offered a starting point argument; which you have refused to consider, which will then be used to build a case for systematic racism after building up a common set of agreed principles. You have refused to argue.
Wrong. I considered it, thought it was a waste of time, and refused to engage in something that was a waste of time.

Just build the case now lol.

I am awaiting your response to the initial argument; you have spend dozens of posts trying to evade answering, and launching into an ever decreasing tailspin of angry assertions about why you don’t want to respond to valid arguments.
You never made an argument that proves systemic racism exists.

There is nothing to respond to.

name calling isn't a substitute for an argument.
You've become one of the topics because you've spent a dozen posts and 1000s of words avoiding making an argument to prove your case.

Build the case or leave.

At some point, you may want to consider actually providing a response to actual arguments
Already tried that in this post (btw it's not my BoP to prove that systemic racism doesn't exist -- negative proof fallacy): Race Realism: Critical understandings (debateart.com) 

You responded by saying 'what about low SES?'

I asked you to prove that systemic racism exists due to low SES, and you have failed to do that.

Again, build the case or leave.

you have simply restated your arguments from the last post.
Yep, because you won't build the case.

Build the case or leave.

Your choice.
#240
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
Wrong. I considered it, thought it was a waste of time, and refused to engage in something that was a waste of time.
Just build the case now lol.
False assertion (32): As explained in previous posts, there is a wholly valid reason to present this argument. You have refused to argue.


You never made an argument that proves systemic racism exists.

There is nothing to respond to.

Argument by repetition (33). This is the same as your last post, and the point that you just made. Repeating a debunked argument is not a valid argument.

False: Mischaracterization (34). I presented the start of my case; you have refused to argue to - you are refusing to give me the opportunity to prove the case.


You've become one of the topics because you've spent a dozen posts and 1000s of words avoiding making an argument to prove your case.

Build the case or leave.
False, assertion (35) - I am building the case; you are simply refusing to argue it (by your own admission)

Circular reasoning (36)- I provide the start of the case; you refuse to engage, when I ask you to justify why, you refuse on the grounds I haven’t provided a case. This seems pretty circular.

Argument by repetition (37). This is the same as your last post, and the point that you just made.

Already tried that in this post (btw it's not my BoP to prove that systemic racism doesn't exist -- negative proof fallacy): Race Realism: Critical understandings (debateart.com)
False, Strawman(38): my demand that you make an argument is clearly and obviously not relating to systemic racism but instead is direct to your inability to provide a justify the subsequent litany is unsupported assertions that I am currently replying to.

My contention is that at some point you should stop simply repeating yourself, and offer a justification for why any of these silly claims should be considered true.  In this respect - I have proven why my argument is a valid basis to start a case - why nothing I’ve said should be considered Ad-Hom, and that you appear to be arguing disingenuously. You now have the burden of proof.

Just to point out, in all my posts - I take your key points; explain the way in which they are wrong, and then provide a justification of why. You are simply ignoring the key points, asserting the same things over and over again - but providing no justification; and certainly no counter arguments. 

You responded by saying 'what about low SES?'
Argument by repetition (39). You have already made this argument - I have pointed out why it was false and you have simply restated if.

False, strawman (40) : I did not say “what about low SES?” I demonstrated why we have to begin at a common set of assumptions - by using this aspect  to demonstrate how assumptions we don’t share can be use to snipe in arguments. IE: without setting up a common set of assumptions first, arguments basically become you hiding behind assumptions that have to be knocked down one by one, which cannot be done without being bogged down - it’s far quicker and more appropriate to build up. As I am trying to do.


I asked you to prove that systemic racism exists due to low SES, and you have failed to do that.
False, Straw man (42) same issue as above.


Again, build the case or leave.
Absolutely. That’s what I’ve been trying to do; however you refuse to engage with me building that case, dismissing my attempts to build that case out of hand without justification.

These posts are my attempt to try and drag you kicking and screaming into an actual logical, rational debate on the subject, rather than aiming the argument at a place that allows you to simply snipe without meaningful engagement.