An Unintended Prediction

No you raised a series of assumptions that show you are the one guilty of the proving too much fallacy as I explained.

If we can agree that trees are good; and planting trees in communities that don’t have them is good; and communities not having trees is bad.

You are disagreeing with those statements on the basis that there are very specific and limited exceptions where or could be bad.

All slavery is evil because there are cases where a slave was beaten to death.

vs the premise of your reply 

You can’t call trees good because there are cases were trees are burdensome.

This is clearly “proving too much” by your own definitions.

You are disagreeing with those statements on the basis that there are very specific and limited exceptions where or could be bad.

I have already explained why this is not true.

Wild assertion - sorry: either way it’s clearly not.

The difference in definitions of "speculation" and "assertion" are significant. You have only addressed the strawman "speculation" argument without addressing my actual argument.

For complaining about chopping out responses, I find it strange that you did not even address this part of my response:

But the very concept of systemic racism assumes that racial disparities are the resultant disadvantages of racism, and therefore must be redressed. Systemic racism (allegedly) results in disparities. How do you eliminate disparities between racial groups except by striving for equality of outcomes?

the role of the government is to redress disadvantages caused by the consequences of historic and systemic racism

I think when it comes to planting trees; that if we’re planting trees, they should go to communities who have fewer. What that is the government should prioritize resource allocation based on who needs the resources most not that the government should enforce equality of outcomes.

The latter is just a huge straw man. The first is just putting money where it is needed and can be practically used, the second implies using excess money to enforce parity in the face of practicality.

For example: would I support tens of billions of dollars with the express goal of making every black community have an equal number of trees to white communities regardless of any practical considerations - no.

If we can agree that trees are good; and planting trees in communities that don’t have them is good; and communities not having trees is bad.

This obviously and clearly means in general - not in absolutely all cases, unless you want to build obtuse strawman.

Recall in my last post I demonstrated why this is clearly  why this is “proving too much” - 

I see that you have completely ignored them - again.

Regardless - my original questions - and the follow up (which you ignored), clearly and obviously mean “in most cases”, and given that your objections are based on the premise that there are limited exceptions - that clarification basically undermines the last 4 posts you’ve made arguing for them.

You can now go back and address the original point in the way it was clearly meant.

You’re claiming that the results of peer reviewed study that leads to a specific conclusion is “wild assertion” that’s clearly and definitively nonsense. This is my point. As your argument was clearly about burden shifting, the fact that something you claimed was an assertion is not; is all that is necessary.

You’re really the only one talking about striving for equity of outcomes. The issue is equal access to to opportunity; and to give the same opportunities when one has been denied in the past, or opportunities are unequal in the present - not to enforce the outcomes to be the same.

I think when it comes to planting trees; that if we’re planting trees, they should go to communities who have fewer. What that is the government should prioritize resource allocation based on who needs the resources most not that the government should enforce equality of outcomes.

This obviously and clearly means in general - not in absolutely all cases, unless you want to build obtuse strawman.

And I have disagreed and not just on the basis of a few specific and limited exceptions. I have already explained why.

Recall in my last post I demonstrated why this is clearly  why this is “proving too much” - 

And I have already explained why it's not "proving too much."

No you didn’t: you simply argued that you weren’t making that argument in one particular context - you’re clearly arguing it - I showed the premise of your argument is identical to the text book case you argued.

Of course, you chopped that out of your reply for some reason

You are disagreeing with those statements on the basis that there are very specific and limited exceptions where or could be bad.

All slavery is evil because there are cases where a slave was beaten to death.

vs the premise of your reply

You can’t call trees good because there are cases were trees are burdensome.

This is clearly “proving too much” by your own definitions.

I see that you have completely ignored them - again.

Regardless - my original questions - and the follow up (which you ignored), clearly and obviously mean “in most cases”, and given that your objections are based on the premise that there are limited exceptions - that clarification basically undermines the last 4 posts you’ve made arguing for them.

You can now go back and address the original point in the way it was clearly meant.

I have already addressed it and I am tired of trying to explain it to you.

If we can agree that trees are good; and planting trees in communities that don’t have them is good; and communities not having trees is bad.

If we can agree that trees are (generally) good; and planting trees in communities that don’t have them is -(generally) good; and communities not having trees is (generally) bad.

You’re claiming that the results of peer reviewed study that leads to a specific conclusion is “wild assertion” that’s clearly and definitively nonsense. This is my point. As your argument was clearly about burden shifting, the fact that something you claimed was an assertion is not; is all that is necessary.

You have completely lost track of my argument. Do you even know which statement I called a wild assertion?

You’re really the only one talking about striving for equity of outcomes. The issue is equal access to to opportunity; and to give the same opportunities when one has been denied in the past, or opportunities are unequal in the present - not to enforce the outcomes to be the same.

This was your statement:

I think when it comes to planting trees; that if we’re planting trees, they should go to communities who have fewer. What that is the government should prioritize resource allocation based on who needs the resources most not that the government should enforce equality of outcomes.

To each according to their need...

Feel free to quote a prior post where you have argued that trees may not be good that is not based on a specific or limited exception - ie: that I can’t call it good because it may not *always* be good. 

This is an example of the proving too much fallacy. Arguing that the whole thing is bad because in some very limited hypothetical scenarios circumstances - it is bad.

That is not what I did. This link explains a proving too much fallacy to be "an argument that reaches a conclusions which contradicts things that are known to be true, or contradicts the premises in that argument." https://www.logicalfallacies.org/proving-too-much.html

There are two examples given:

• All slavery is evil because there are cases where a slave was beaten to death.
  
• Fire is a bad thing because there are many fires which burn down property and cost lives.
  

Let's compare those examples to your argument:

• Trees are good because they reduce heat, provide shade, reduce pollution.
  

Do you see the similarity between your claim and the examples above? You are drawing the conclusion that trees are good based on a limited list of effects. Trees also kill people and can do severe damage to property. That doesn't mean that trees are bad, but those are also effects of trees.

Contrary to your accusation of committing a fallacy, I did not actually argue that trees are bad or that planting trees is bad. I said that trees are not inherently good. Nor is planting trees inherently good. The goodness or badness is dependent upon the specific situation, not the trees or the planting of trees. So rather than drawing a conclusion about the goodness or badness of trees necessary to commit the proving too much fallacy, I am simply saying that we should do a cost/benefit analysis before reaching such a conclusion. You are the one using a limited list of effects to declare trees as good and a lack of trees as bad.

You have completely lost track of my argument. Do you even know which statement I called a wild assertion?

I remember explicitly. You called my claim based upon the content of peer reviewed research that concluded that minority communities have fewer trees than others - as “wild assertion”.

What you’re doing is declaring that it is unreasonable because it’s been pointed out that minorities have disproportionately fewer trees (which is factually accurate)

Is your claim that the Nature study from the article factually proved that minorities have disproportionately less trees than white people throughout the entire US? And not just as an extrapolation, but as a statistical reality?

To each according to their need...

I am assuming that as you have completely dropped all attempts to argue the point you had raised, that you have conceded the point. If not feel free to go back and post an argument.

It’s not clear what the argument here is: are you objecting to the idea that you allocate resources based on needs? Objecting to this seems to mean that you feel resources be spent in areas that don’t need any more money? That is just stupid.

This is the problem with making a statement that seems like it wants to be an argument, but doesn’t actually make a point.

So rather than drawing a conclusion about the goodness or badness of trees necessary to commit the proving too much fallacy, I am simply saying that we should do a cost/benefit analysis before reaching such a conclusion. You are the one using a limited list of effects to declare trees as good and a lack of trees as bad.

All slavery is evil because there are cases where a slave was beaten to death.

clearly “proving too much” by your own definitions.

So could you perhaps clarify what you meant now that you are aware of the actual term I used, and be specific about whether you mean minorities have disproportionately less trees throughout the US, or only in the 37 cities mentioned by the study.

To each according to their need...

I am assuming that as you have completely dropped all attempts to argue the point you had raised, that you have conceded the point. If not feel free to go back and post an argument.

It’s not clear what the argument here is: are you objecting to the idea that you allocate resources based on needs? Objecting to this seems to mean that you feel resources be spent in areas that don’t need any more money? That is just stupid.

This is the problem with making a statement that seems like it wants to be an argument, but doesn’t actually make a point.

Just because you didn't get it doesn't mean it didn't make a point. I really shouldn't have to explain this one.

What you’re doing is offering a limited exception : that trees may not always be good in every scenario, they could have a burden in some cases, or not be plantable in some areas - and the using it to try and argue against a general case I’m making - that I can’t call trees good.

By definition, that is proving too much.

In fact: you appear to be saying you’re not proving too much, and then justifying this claim with by offering a clear example of proving too much…

So could you perhaps clarify what you meant now that you are aware of the actual term I used, and be specific about whether you mean minorities have disproportionately less trees throughout the US, or only in the 37 cities mentioned by the study.

Yes - that the idea that drawing the conclusion based upon a wide reaching study of multiple cities is many things, but not - by any means - “wild asserrtion”

To each according to their need...

I am assuming that as you have completely dropped all attempts to argue the point you had raised, that you have conceded the point. If not feel free to go back and post an argument.

It’s not clear what the argument here is: are you objecting to the idea that you allocate resources based on needs? Objecting to this seems to mean that you feel resources be spent in areas that don’t need any more money? That is just stupid.

This is the problem with making a statement that seems like it wants to be an argument, but doesn’t actually make a point.

Just because you didn't get it doesn't mean it didn't make a point. I really shouldn't have to explain this one.

Yeah - you’re making a veiled communism reference. Which is dumb because of the bolded part of my post  

You’ve also dropped the remaining parts of my post. Which I will take to mean you have no further ability to argue them. Awesome, I will take your drop as concession.

• But the very concept of systemic racism - a permanent and perpetual reality - assumes that racial disparities are the resultant disadvantages of racism, and therefore must be redressed. Systemic racism (allegedly) results in disparities. How do you eliminate disparities between racial groups except by striving for equality of outcomes?
  

No it's not. Saying "trees are not inherently good" is not the same as "trees are bad." I have not drawn a general conclusion based on limited evidence as you have. I have specifically not drawn a general conclusion.

No. I am simply not assuming trees are good based on a limited list of effects - an excellent example of the "proving too much" fallacy.

You did not say that your conclusion was "many things." You said it was a fact.

I haven't dropped anything.

If you focus on the permanent and perpetual nature of systemic racism, you will understand why I reject that the example of individualized and intentional racism of the boss withholding money is a relevant analogy.

How do you eliminate disparities between racial groups except by striving for equality of outcomes?

You still haven't meaningfully addressed this point because you have only made a flawed analogy to respond.

No it's not. Saying "trees are not inherently good" is not the same as "trees are bad." I have not drawn a general conclusion based on limited evidence as you have. I have specifically not drawn a general conclusion.

I have helpfully bolded the general conclusion you have made. This is the general conclusion you try and support using specific and limited exceptions… which I believe is called “proving too much”

It seems you don’t understand what proving too much is. It’s when you use specific and limited exceptions (like you are) to prove a general conclusion (which you are); that if applies, leads to absurd conclusions (like policies that fund tree planting are bad).

I am not taking specific and limited exceptions, but general properties (trees in general reduce air pollution and reduce temperature), I am using it to show a general conclusion; which leads to reasonable conclusion. Trees are trees; they have limited downsides - it’s not like they’re going out mugging people or stealing cars and given that you’ve been stamping your feed for two pages and haven’t offered any general downside - it appears you agree with me.

Of course - don’t let reality get in the way of this pathological need to offer the first objection you can think of - regardless of how silly.

You did not say that your conclusion was "many things." You said it was a fact.

Yes: and you can reasonably call that statement many things - but a wild assertion is not one of them.

• "And I am saying that your statement that minorities have disproportionately fewer trees [across the entire US] based on the conclusion of a single study examining 37 cities, extrapolating that data across an extremely diverse population and landscape, then stating that your conclusion is an indisputable fact is a wild assertion."
  

I haven't dropped anything.

Don’t lie - and don’t insult everyone’s intelligence. Anyone reading is able to clearly observe you stopping responding to arguments.

If you focus on the permanent and perpetual nature of systemic racism, you will understand why I reject that the example of individualized and intentional racism of the boss withholding money is a relevant analogy.

Who said anything about permanent and perpetual?

While it’s nice you’ve gone back to address the argument you dropped, telling me that you definitely have a valid reason for dismissing my analogy is not actually providing a valid reason.

No it's not. Saying "trees are not inherently good" is not the same as "trees are bad." I have not drawn a general conclusion based on limited evidence as you have. I have specifically not drawn a general conclusion.

I have helpfully bolded the general conclusion you have made. This is the general conclusion you try and support using specific and limited exceptions… which I believe is called “proving too much”

No it's not. My statement was a rejection of your conclusion that trees (and planting trees) are good.

It seems you don’t understand what proving too much is. It’s when you use specific and limited exceptions (like you are) to prove a general conclusion (which you are); that if applies, leads to absurd conclusions (like policies that fund tree planting are bad).

I am not taking specific and limited exceptions, but general properties (trees in general reduce air pollution and reduce temperature), I am using it to show a general conclusion; which leads to reasonable conclusion. Trees are trees; they have limited downsides - it’s not like they’re going out mugging people or stealing cars and given that you’ve been stamping your feed for two pages and haven’t offered any general downside - it appears you agree with me.

Of course - don’t let reality get in the way of this pathological need to offer the first objection you can think of - regardless of how silly.

No. I already stated that I have specifically not made any general conclusions about whether trees (or policies that fund tree planting) are good or bad. That must be evaluated on a case by case basis.

You are saying that because trees provide shade and beneficial effects for the environment (while ignoring any negative effects trees can have), we can start with the presumption that all policies funding tree planting are good. I reject that general conclusion.

Yes: and you can reasonably call that statement many things - but a wild assertion is not one of them.

You did not offer any reasoned response to my analysis

I haven't dropped anything.

Don’t lie - and don’t insult everyone’s intelligence. Anyone reading is able to clearly observe you stopping responding to arguments.

It is somewhat entertaining to watch you refuse to be wrong and pretending it is me dropping the argument.

What do you think systemic racism is in it's contemporary meaning if not permanent and perpetual?

I already told you that I would answer your question when you answered mine. Since you don't even understand that systemic racism is permanent and perpetual, then you haven't meaningfully addressed my actual point.

You can do three things:

- show trees do not have a general upside (which you can’t because they do)

- show trees have a general downside (which you can’t because they don’t)

- explain how your position “that trees cannot be considered generally good” is not a general and broad conclusion (which it clearly is)

You did not offer any reasoned response to my analysis

Boom okay. So - you’re telling me that not offering reasoned response to an analysis is somehow bad, right? Meaning that if you have done just that elsewhere - I can call you out on it: and you would agree that your argument is bad?

I haven't dropped anything.

Don’t lie - and don’t insult everyone’s intelligence. Anyone reading is able to clearly observe you stopping responding to arguments.

It is somewhat entertaining to watch you refuse to be wrong and pretending it is me dropping the argument.

I’m basing my analysis that you are dropping arguments on:

- you stopping responding on key salient points.

- have to be constantly reminded of things that I have said that already answer key points that you claim remain unaddressed.

What do you think systemic racism is in it's contemporary meaning if not permanent and perpetual?

I already told you that I would answer your question when you answered mine. Since you don't even understand that systemic racism is permanent and perpetual, then you haven't meaningfully addressed my actual point.

I’ve answered the question: you’ve asked a question about disparities that I answered multiple times, you kept asking, I continued to answer multiple times, you then dropped - then demand I answer again. Note: it was answered in post #29, #31 and a bunch of others that I summarized

The other question you asked was about whether a given policy is racist; to which I answered in post #19, you then told me I didn’t answer, I answered again in post #25, to which you objected with things that I had already covered (see post #29)

It’s like ground hog day, I answer the question - you call it discrimination - I point out why it’s not discrimination using an analogy - you tell me I haven’t answered the question.

This is just plainly absurd. If you’re going to go round in circles and not address any of things I’ve said, at least have the common courtesy to stfu while you do it.

We should do a cost/benefit analysis of each particular situation before coming to a general conclusion that planting trees is a good or a bad thing thing. That's the explanation.

You did not offer any reasoned response to my analysis

Boom okay. So - you’re telling me that not offering reasoned response to an analysis is somehow bad, right? Meaning that if you have done just that elsewhere - I can call you out on it: and you would agree that your argument is bad?

No. I said that not offering a reasoned response to an analysis is an assertion. That's it.

I’ve answered the question: you’ve asked a question about disparities that I answered multiple times, you kept asking, I continued to answer multiple times, you then dropped - then demand I answer again. Note: it was answered in post #29, #31 and a bunch of others that I summarized

You didn't answer it in the context of systemic racism, which is by definition permanent and perpetual. But since you didn't know that, you didn't meaningfully answer the question.

Because you're using a different definition of discrimination than me. And your definition is grounded upon, or at least consistent with, CRT and it's understanding of systemic (rather than individual) racism.

This is just plainly absurd. If you’re going to go round in circles and not address any of things I’ve said, at least have the common courtesy to stfu while you do it.

You engaged me on my thread, and you are free to leave any time you wish.