-->
@3RU7AL
maybe
Why are so many resilient to fact-based truth regarding black criminality?
Posts
Total:
427
-->
@TWS1405
-->@oromagiWell, I am new here. I do not know all your rules and/or expectations. Also, this is the forum and not a formal debate.It was a link with info that established the opposite of what another was claiming.
- More expectations than rules. This is isn't facebook and twitter: we're trying to maintain some semblance of intellectual integrity here.
- Isn't this the same dude who bragged in POST#53 of this same forum topic:
- "I am an excellent researcher/investigator. I know my facts. And I never post anything anywhere that I cannot back up with facts. I do NOT cherry pick data. I do not draw broad conclusions either. " and
- Doesn't you shitposting Dr. "Black Atlantis" effectively disprove these earlier claims of yours?
You also took it to another level by claiming I was promoting him, personally, and demanded more than what was necessary (ie., red herring fallacy). That's on you. Not me.
- PROMOTION is defined as "Dissemination of information in order to increase its popularity." Linking to anything as a source of information is PROMOTION by the dictionary definition. The fact that you don't know what that word means is on you, not me.
I regret nothing. Never have, never will.
- false
- WIKIPEDIA:
- REMORSE is a distressing emotion experienced by an individual who regrets actions which they have done in the past..... A person who is incapable of feeling remorse is often diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder, as characterized in the DSM IV-TR.
You definitely come off as a sanctimonious snob.
- SANCTIMONIOUS is "Making a show of being better than others"
- Anybody who has ever read my profile page knows that I concede sanctimoniousness
- a SNOB is "one who blatantly imitates, fawningly admires, or vulgarly seeks association with those regarded as social superiors"
- A good example of snobbery is "All I have plainly tried to do is dispel the fake narrative that whites and cops are the problem in society, not blacks (or other persons of color). " or
- "Black culture is the problem that fuels crime, abuse, rape, murder, poor parenting, drug use, gangs, so on and so forth."
-->
@oromagi
Yup, you are not only a sanctimonious snob...
noun
- One who despises, ignores, or is patronizing to those he or she considers inferior.
- One who is convinced of his or her superiority in matters of taste or intellect.
- A convulsive sob.
You also display classic narcissistic personality disorder traits.
Still no regret, remorse or anything else you will falsely ascribe.
Truth does NOT equal snobbery. What I said - in context - about the small segment of black males that cause so much violence in this country is factually accurate.
I do not know where you are finding your definitions, but they are the wrong meanings of the terms used in the context in which they were given.
promotion
noun
- The act of promoting someone to a higher job, grade, or rank, or the fact of being so promoted.
Still did not promote the man with whom you clearly have a hardon for.
-->
@TWS1405
Not false, fact. You're all about my delivery and nothing about the facts given.
There was no name-calling in that statement above. Adjectives do NOT = nouns.
And no, I have capitulated to nothing of the sort. (Delusions of graduer on your part)
If you feel my argument is “all about delivery”, and not “the facts given”, please by all means go through posts #307-312 above and specify how and why you have drawn this conclusion - I would like you spend extra attention in posts #310-#312 - because here I specifically go through and contest your conclusions based on facts and demonstrate how your conclusions are unsupported - or refuted by the data. Also, in #307-309 while I talk a little about language and tone; I would like you to explain why you feel taking about the logical issues and poorly reasoned arguments in your posts is “all about your delivery.
Telling me that I’m just so gosh darn wrong - doesn’t make me wrong.
Telling me that I’m just so gosh darn wrong - doesn’t make me wrong.
Yes, you are [denying the data]. Yes, they are. Yes, they most certainly are. And in doing so it only perpetuates the problem.
Where?
Please quote the part of my post - any of my posts - where I have “denied the data”. Be specific.
Please quote the part of my post - any of my posts - where I have “denied the data”. Be specific.
Then you clearly do not know very many leftists or democrats then. Denial = acceptance
Quote one. Find me a blue tick leftist on Twitter or instagram, left wing journalist in any news or magazine organization with an about page that shows ownership, or any left wing politician or activists for which there is a wiki page, and quote to me where they explicitly “deny the data” that you are listing here.
Not “provide an explanation for” not “provide context to” not “work through underlying causes and reasons for it” - a quote where the data is explicitly denied.
Not “provide an explanation for” not “provide context to” not “work through underlying causes and reasons for it” - a quote where the data is explicitly denied.
And they (leftists and democrats) are full of denial … yadda yadda yadda.
This is just an opinionated rant - there is no argument for me to respond to.
As soon as I or anyone like-minded (to include black conservatives) presents that data, out come the derogatory labels written on the palm of the hand raised to silence that information.
And yet - as shown, those conclusions in this case aren’t wholly unreasonable.
None of the statements I made are factually inaccurate. Truth is NOT racism.
This is conclusion is absolutely untrue - I explained in detail why in post: #307 -by all means quote the argument and explain how and why my reasoning is wrong.
Repeating a claim after it’s been debunked, with no attempt to justify it is a bit intellectually dishonest.
Some of the statements such as “whites not whining about slavery”, contain a factual point - but imply value. The fact is a fact - the value you insert into those statements is not. (Again see posts above)
So these statements which imply value can clearly be interpreted as racist as a result (see #307 for more detail.
A bunch - are not based on any specific data; and is purely your opinion that you are asserting is fact. I concentrated on pride - which thus far (given posts #315) you still haven’t provided data for and tried to change the subject.
By all means, If you disagree - by all means explain why that interpretation is not correct. Simply denying everything, is not intellectually honest.
Some of the statements such as “whites not whining about slavery”, contain a factual point - but imply value. The fact is a fact - the value you insert into those statements is not. (Again see posts above)
So these statements which imply value can clearly be interpreted as racist as a result (see #307 for more detail.
A bunch - are not based on any specific data; and is purely your opinion that you are asserting is fact. I concentrated on pride - which thus far (given posts #315) you still haven’t provided data for and tried to change the subject.
By all means, If you disagree - by all means explain why that interpretation is not correct. Simply denying everything, is not intellectually honest.
[that you have regularly conflated “black people” with “a specific limited set of the black population” is a ] Semantics argument.
As pointed out, a post including language that admonishes an entire race (which you did) sounds racist even if in error. It is not unreasonable for people to conclude you are a racist, when you frequently make terminological errors that make the things you say sound racist.
By all means feel free to explain why that logic is invalid - why you feel it’s semantics, and what about semantics makes it false - saying it is so, doesn’t make it so
By all means feel free to explain why that logic is invalid - why you feel it’s semantics, and what about semantics makes it false - saying it is so, doesn’t make it so
The topic or issue is correcting the false narrative put out by the left…
So you said a bunch of stuff here admonishing me telling me they’re wrong - re-iterating how right you are, that people have 1 dimensional thinking etc, etc - you haven’t actually addressed the point at all:
The underlying point is that if someone blustered into a thread and was solely fixated on constantly posting negative statistics about Volvos, admonishing people for not acknowledging all the negative statistics about Volvos, and abrasively posting their unvarnished opinion about how some of the new models are terrible shitty cars - with the odd choice of initial thread, and sole apparent topic of interest being how no one accepts your negative Volvo fact based data - it would not be unreasonable for someone viewing this behaviour to conclude you have an issue with Volvos.
Perhaps you can explain - given my list of your behaviour, and this explanation - why you feel it is unreasonable for individuals to attribute this abrasive, negative behaviour to racism in the same way?
The underlying point is that if someone blustered into a thread and was solely fixated on constantly posting negative statistics about Volvos, admonishing people for not acknowledging all the negative statistics about Volvos, and abrasively posting their unvarnished opinion about how some of the new models are terrible shitty cars - with the odd choice of initial thread, and sole apparent topic of interest being how no one accepts your negative Volvo fact based data - it would not be unreasonable for someone viewing this behaviour to conclude you have an issue with Volvos.
Perhaps you can explain - given my list of your behaviour, and this explanation - why you feel it is unreasonable for individuals to attribute this abrasive, negative behaviour to racism in the same way?
Ah, there's that delusion of grandeur again.
Only "nuh-uh" banality here is all on you.
“Nuh-uh” indicates a case where you say in wrong, but provide no explanation - as you have done exclusively in this post . Feel free to find an example of me claiming “nuh-uh” on a point where you provided a justification of your opinion.
Easy to claim, harder to prove. Nothing I've said has been inconsistent with the data since it is based specifically off the data.
In 311,312 and 313 I go out of my way to explicitly detail all the aspects of your opinions that are refuted by data - I provided the data you asked for, backed up everything with sources - and comprehensively demolished multiple attributions you made. This includes data, interpretation, and pointing out logical errors you make in your attribution.
If you don’t agree with that assessment, and you take issue with my argument and logic, by all means feel free to explain exactly what part of my argument is wrong - and why.
Without that, your response is just a meaningless denial
If you don’t agree with that assessment, and you take issue with my argument and logic, by all means feel free to explain exactly what part of my argument is wrong - and why.
Without that, your response is just a meaningless denial
Nope. Only in your fictional world is it capitulating.
When someone posts a detailed rebuttal to every point raised that spans multiple posts - and the other side is unable to address the claims in any way shape or form; and whose only response is to either a) repeat the debunked claims or b.) simply repeating how wrong someone is - it clearly demonstrates that person is unable to deal with the points raised.
That no attempt is made at all to address the point, and this reply descends into just repeating assertions that the other is wrong - renders the lack of response a capitulation.
That no attempt is made at all to address the point, and this reply descends into just repeating assertions that the other is wrong - renders the lack of response a capitulation.
You've made no points worth answering (points are not answered, questions are answered).
How can the readers here tell that these points aren’t worth answering - as opposed to you being unable to answer them, and then lying that the points are not worth answering because you know how bad it looks not answering a detailed argument?
You're bitching about delivery and ignoring the truth of it all.
please cite one example of a truth you feel I have e “ignored”
I've already explained why you are wrong.
By all means, feel free to quote the part of your posts where you feel you have addressed a point of contention - I will be happy to draw your attention to a post that explains why your response is inadequate or illogical.
Otherwise, again, your reply is merely a base assertion without merit.
Otherwise, again, your reply is merely a base assertion without merit.
-->
@TWS1405
OK, so you're reduced to "I'm rubber, you're glue" great.
Why is TWS1405 so resilient [sic] to fact-based truth regarding his false claims that he's an "an excellent researcher/investigator?"
-->
@oromagi
It appears his ability to defend his point of view is particularly superficial given his replies.
Also, the idea that you have narcissistic personality disorder is clearly false.
We all know it’s borderline histrionic personality disorder all day long.
-->
@Ramshutu
and here I was thinking I was just a crank
-->
@TWS1405
You definitely come off as a sanctimonious snob.
I like neither you nor Oromagi but this is the fact you have Oromagi pinned down to a T so fast tells me you are intelligent even if you are a prick.
You are the same as Oromagi, you just don't see it yet, the thing you are both particularly sanctimonious about is your so-called 'needle in a haystack honesty' that neither of you actually realises is both more normal and irrelevant to any situation you both have brought it up in.
That said, I will say you are more honest than he is. Oromagi is only as honest as his self-deception lets him be. You seem to be an honest prick who wants a political realm that enables and unleashes the prick within us all.
-->
@RationalMadman
I will accept and take your constructive criticism of myself as a compliment.
And I agree with your knowledgeable assessment of Oromagi. Obviously.
-->
@oromagi
-->@TWS1405OK, so you're reduced to (sic) "I'm rubber, you're glue" great. (sic)
Nope. I leave such sophomoric banality to those like you.
Why is TWS1405 so (sic) resilient [sic] to fact-based truth regarding his (sic) false claims that he's an (sic) "an excellent researcher/investigator?"
When you take the matter out of context it is false. Within the context of the discussion, it is true.
Your personal hardon for those you dislike and are cited is not my problem, that's your personal problem.
-->
@TWS1405
Well, I am new here. I do not know all your rules and/or expectations.
don't let oro pretend they are the one true arbiter of debateart culture
-->
@3RU7AL
@TWS1405
don't let oro pretend they are the one true arbiter of debateart culture
Definitely not.
-->
@oromagi
Definitely not.
Now that I can agree with you on..."definitely not" you are.
A lot of your debate tactics are sophomoric.
One day, with the right debate topic, I will take you on.
-->
@TWS1405
A lot of your debate tactics are sophomoric.
Agreed, in fact I've never studied or participated in any kind of formal debating. I'm just sort of winging it.
-->
@TWS1405
Now that I can agree with you on..."definitely not" you are.A lot of your debate tactics are sophomoric.One day, with the right debate topic, I will take you on.
Sophomoric as they may be - I have yet to see Oromagi talk about how good he is at debating, research, linking, considering etc - in a discussion as an argument. I have also never heard him tell someone they are wrong, incorrect or mistaken - without also providing an explanation of why at the same time.
Two key behaviours that you would be best served to copy.
-->
@Ramshutu
Never claimed to be good, great or awesome at debating. Strawman.
I am good at researching the topic that I initiate and engage in, not those I did not initiate. I use the shotgun effect.
Anyone can link, doesn't take any measure of expertise you clown.
Oh, he has said another is incorrect without proving it. That's for sure.
You need to check your arrogance and sanctimonious narcist banality at the door, Mr. Dunning Kruger.
-->
@TWS1405
Never claimed to be good, great or awesome at debating. Strawman.
Did I say you did? For it to be a strawman, I have to misrepresent your position - I didn’t even mention your position
I am good at researching the topic that I initiate and engage in, not those I did not initiate. I use the shotgun effect.
No you’re not.
Cases in point:
You cited data on out of wedlock births that contained only partial data - when there was easily searchable complete data easily available.
You claimed to have data supporting your contention on pride and determination - but posted one link that partially showed the opposite, followed by four more on unrelated topics - that pretty blatantly espoused the validity of systemic racism.
You made claims about the spike out of wedlock births causing mass incarceration - despite happening after; disputed the occurrence of the peak - which occurred well after you suggested; disputed that wedlock births are at the lowest ever a which they are.
You also disputed claims on when mass incarceration happened, disputed the existence of data on skews in the criminal Justice statistics - which I cited specifically; and disputes the validity of the claim that various crime rates have fallen massively.
The evidence of your research prowess is clearly refuted by your consistent inability to Google facts and parameters given to you, citing poor or contradictory sources, and having a rather poor command of the facts.
Anyone can link, doesn't take any measure of expertise you clown.
Of course - expertise is demonstrated by an ability to disentangle statistics, explain why their position is wrong, what logical errors they are making; to the point the other person is unable to respond.
Oh, he has said another is incorrect without proving it. That's for sure.
Where?
You need to check your arrogance and sanctimonious narcist banality at the door, Mr. Dunning Kruger.
This sounds like you’re trying out madlibs.
-->
@Ramshutu
Never claimed to be good, great or awesome at debating. Strawman.Did I say you did? For it to be a strawman, I have to misrepresent your position - I didn’t even mention your position
Yeah, you did. It was implicitly implied.
"I have yet to see Oromagi talk about how good he is at debating, research, linking, considering etc -"
You are just being your usual narcissistic sanctimonious denialist self.
Go away. You're just continuing to make a fool of yourself.
Yeah, you did. It was implicitly implied.
How does one imply anything other than implicitly?
"I have yet to see Oromagi talk about how good he is at debating, research, linking, considering etc -"
You said straw man. A straw man is when I take your position, modify it. And attack the modification. I’m clearly doing none of those things here.
I point this out, as it indicates that you clearly don't understand what a straw man is; despite you asserting it (obviously without any explanation) multiple times.
However - in your response; it appears you have conceded that you have broadly done all the other things, and as I summarized in my last post - and highlighted in 307-312 - you’re clearly a terrible researcher with little command of the facts.
You are just being your usual narcissistic sanctimonious denialist self.Go away. You're just continuing to make a fool of yourself.
How exactly, do you feel I’m making a fool of myself?
Each time I post, I explain the detail of why you’re wrong, I link back to points you ignore, demonstrate the logical issues in what you say, and with every post you demonstrate that you have no real answer to anything I say.
For example - I pointed out in my last post at how you are clearly a terrible researcher, and point out all the elements of research you got wholly wrong and, as yet, have not been able to defend - everyone is able to see that you completely ignored it before - and completely ignored it again.
I’m more than happy to keep going through and pointing out all the data you’re ignoring, how you’re argument is refuted by facts - as I showed in post 307-312 above.
If you feel that providing a list of excuses of why you don't want to respond to detail data that proves your argument wholly wrong makes me look like a fool - I am more than happy not to correct you
-->
@Ramshutu
**YAWN**
-->
@TWS1405
**YAWN**
That is an absolutely great answer to the argument.
Let me reiterate some of your errors, as you seem to want to ignore them.
1.) You’ve posted sloppy data to support claims of pride and self determination, which partially refuted your own claims.
2.) you m posted a bunch of links to support claims that the black community has no pride or determination that did not show that, and instead made explicitly suggested that both systemic racism and on-going racism was the course of some specific issues.
3.) You claimed a peak of out of wedlock births drove mass incarceration - yet the peak occurred after.
4.) You blamed crime rates on out of wedlock births and fatherlessness - despite little correlation after the mid 90s, and little correlation with murder rate after the mid 70s.
5.) You incorrectly claimed that wedlock birthrates were not at record lows - yet they are.
6.) You blame crime rates in “black culture” despite the crime rates having fallen drastically since the culture you talk about was around.
7.) You rejected my staying common knowledge data about the drop of the crime rate and the timing of mass incarceration. Despite the data mentioned being specific - and trivially googleable.
8.) You rejected several citations of actual racial skew in crime data - despite them being easily googleable and clear cut instances of racial skew in crime data.
9.) You remain unable to justify how or why simply repeating a data point justifies the list of conclusions you draw from them.
10.) You can’t cite ANY examples of prominent leftists denying the data.
11.) you accuse me of denying the data - yet can’t cite any examples or me doing so.
12.) You’ve been provided clear examples of where your language is explicitly racist - which you are unable to defend. You’ve been provided clear examples where you have injected unsupported value statements - which you have been unable to defend - and it’s been pointed out that it’s not unreasonable to presume your unceasingly abrasive, and excessively negative tone aimed solely at a minority - is motivated by your negative opinion of that race.
You have been systematically unable to defend any of your arguments thus far - and have capitulated the entire argument to the point that all you have left is calling me a sanctimonious narcissist.
Well, this sanctimonious narcissist would very much like to hear what you have to say in the above points; though I don’t hold my breath given that it has been my opinion that people holding positions like yours have a tendency to either end capitulate in the face of scrutiny as you’re doing here.
Though I’m hoping I can drag you kicking and screaming back to the points you no longer seem willing to defend.
-->
@Athias
YOU DO NOT GET TO DETERMINE WHETHER YOU ASSUME A BURDEN OF PROOF; IT IS THE CLAIM ITSELF THAT DETERMINES THE BURDEN OF PROOF.
My claim does not assume the BOP. 3RURAL made the original claim that blacks inhabited Sumeria
-->
@Ramshutu
**YAWN**That is an absolutely great answer to the argument.
It sure IS when there is NO argument presented.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
NOTE: I am presenting NO argument for or against.
Just posting links to INFORMATION.
-->
@TWS1405
But that would be a complete lie, given that I have provided a fairly detailed rebuttal to everything you have said to me in this thread, which as of now, remain unanswered:
#307
#308
#309
#310
#311
#312
And here:
#315
#334
For which you have absolutely no response at all.
These are pretty comprehensively rebutting your position - and I would be happy to repost them right now so that everyone can judge whether they are “an argument” or not.
#307
#308
#309
#310
#311
#312
And here:
#315
#334
For which you have absolutely no response at all.
These are pretty comprehensively rebutting your position - and I would be happy to repost them right now so that everyone can judge whether they are “an argument” or not.
-->
@Ramshutu
Continue to stomp around in your mud puddle giggling away while patting yourself on the back for your delusions of grandeur. I have zero interest responding to you any further in this thread.
When I've merely repeating similar positions stated by black scholars and other persons of color, well-known names like Thomas Sowell, Larry Elder, John McWhorter, Dinesh D'Souza, and so on...your disagreement is sophomoric when weighed and measure against their intellect and experience(s).
-->
@TWS1405
Continue to stomp around in your mud puddle giggling away while patting yourself on the back for your delusions of grandeur. I have zero interest responding to you any further in this thread.When I've merely repeating similar positions stated by black scholars and other persons of color, well-known names like Thomas Sowell, Larry Elder, John McWhorter, Dinesh D'Souza, and so on...your disagreement is sophomoric when weighed and measure against their intellect and experience(s).
This is an Ad Hominem attack - it adds nothing, has no relevance to the argument; and can be dismissed for this reason.
I have provided a pretty detailed and comprehensive set of arguments in the posts listed here: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7780/post-links/337246 , and summarized here: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7780/post-links/336921
You have absolutely no answer at all to any of the points I raised; and now it appears your running away.
Your position is intellectually bankrupt; and now it appears you are demonstrating that you have no ability to defend it.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
My claim does not assume the BOP. 3RURAL made the original claim that blacks inhabited Sumeria
After you claimed that so-called "'blacks' never had to invent or develop a great civilization." In response, 3RU7AL claimed that "many scholars have concluded that the founders of the first Mesopotamian civilization were Black Sumerians"--a claim for which he provided reference. I'll explain the burden of proof to you. The burden of proof, a.k.a. "onus probandi" is an obligation a claimant bears in substantiating the affirmation of a premise/argument. This onus is not contingent on order--meaning, it doesn't matter what 3RU7AL claimed first. You affirmed the argument, "blacks' never had to invent or develop a great civilization;" you affirmed, "It's utter bullshit. Blacks were nowhere in Ancient Sumeria." These are affirmations which require substantiation. As both the author and claimant, it is your onus--your burden--to demonstrate these claims.
I bear no burden of proof because I neither denied nor affirmed anyone's claims. All I asked was that you prove your claim. Instead, you attempted to shift the onus to me, and ascribe sole responsibility on 3RU7AL for substantiating his argument DESPITE THE FACT that 3RU7AL in good form provided you references before you even had to ask.
So what is this posturing really about, Dr.Franklin? You're attempting to argue from ignorance, fallacious reasoning which is tantamount to, "I'm right until you prove me wrong." All you've convinced me of thus far is that your knowledge of the subject perhaps is more limited than you let on, and that you're either unwilling or incapable of explaining and substantiating your claims.
-->
@Ramshutu
You have absolutely no answer at all to any of the points I raised; and now it appears your running away.Your position is intellectually bankrupt; and now it appears you are demonstrating that you have no ability to defend it.
More display of the Dunning Kruger Effect on your part. Bravo.
Claiming my position is intellectually bankrupt is to assert the same towards Larry Elder, Thomas Sowell, Brandon Tatum, Kevin Gates, John McWhorter, Candice Owens, Dr Ben Carson, Denzel Washington, Morgan Freeman, Booker T Washington, Colin Powell, Harman Cain, Clarence Thomas, so on and so forth.
So, keep patting yourself on your back. I could care less about you and your delusions of grandeur.
-->
@TWS1405
More display of the Dunning Kruger Effect on your part. Bravo.Claiming my position is intellectually bankrupt is to assert the same towards Larry Elder, Thomas Sowell, Brandon Tatum, Kevin Gates, John McWhorter, Candice Owens, Dr Ben Carson, Denzel Washington, Morgan Freeman, Booker T Washington, Colin Powell, Harman Cain, Clarence Thomas, so on and so forth.So, keep patting yourself on your back. I could care less about you and your delusions of grandeur.
Another Ad-hominem attack, and appeal to authority; these are meaningless.
I’ve explained in great detail why your argument is intellectually bankrupt (in the posts listed here: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7780/post-links/337246 , and summarized here: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7780/post-links/336921)
You are clearly unable to defend any of your arguments. You’re more than willing to spend time energy and effort continually asserting I am wrong: ye are unwilling to use that same time and energy to explain how I’m wrong; despite continuously professing how obvious my incorrectness is.
You’re fooling no one.
I asked you to provide a single example of me denying the data - which you claimed I did.
Silence.
I asked you to provide an example of any prominent leftist denying the data.
Silence.
You demand data - I give you the data
Silence
You claim data does support my position - I give you the data.
Silence.
I explain specifically how your behaviour can be interpreted as racist.
Silence
I explain how truth can be made racist with tone and value
Silence
I showed you the data you cherry picked
Silence
I showed where your data doesn’t agree with you
Silence.
Silence
Silence
And you sit here and expect us to believe that instead of putting energy into refuting even a single point I raised - the appropriate use of your time is calling me a narcissist over and over again
You are fooling no one.