-->
@Ramshutu
Your obvious desperation for attention and acknowledgment is rather unbecoming.
Why are so many resilient to fact-based truth regarding black criminality?
Posts
Total:
427
-->
@Ramshutu
Another Ad-hominem attack, and appeal to authority
bingo
-->
@TWS1405
Your obvious desperation for attention and acknowledgment is rather unbecoming.
You are calling me names; I am trying to call your attention back to the facts, the data and the arguments - all of which you’re ignoring.
I don’t need to rely on insults, just my facts.
Specifically:
1.) As shown - adding value statements, implying value, making textual errors applying to an entire race, and your general abrasive tone and negative behaviour is a pattern of behaviour at the most charitable - is easily confused with racism. And it’s not unreasonable for people to make that presumption of you.
2.) you’ve consistently fudged the data, posted poor links, cherry picked correlations about wedlock births and crime rates and otherwise Attributed various causes where the data clearly and indisputably shows othewise. You’ve made false claims and statements about what the data shows, denies data points that were clearly and indisputably accurate and otherwise demonstrate a poor and biased grasp of the facts.
3.) You’re entire argument is predicated on a false premise; you repeatedly claim the left - including myself deny data - and yet have repeatedly failed to show examples: equivocate about what that claim even means, and contradict yourself when pinned down.
In addition - instead of actually defending any of those points ; which are clearly argued and laid out in detail between posts 307 and 315 of this thread - you’re just descending into a fit of childish name calling and deflection.
My arguments speak for themselves - as does your inability to respond to any of them.
-->
@Ramshutu
Your obvious desperation for attention and acknowledgment is rather unbecoming.You are calling me names;
Adjectives do NOT equal nouns.
Descriptors of behavior is NOT name calling.
-->
@3RU7AL
Another Ad-hominem attack, and appeal to authoritybingo
That so-called appeal to authority is so overused that it is rendered meaningless.
When dissertations, scientific papers, legal research, scholarly books, etc. are written they all share one thing in common: citations to authority.
Whenever someone invokes an appeal to authority without rebutting it, all they are doing is committing the genetic fallacy.
Again, not all ad hominems are true ad hominems when factually accurate.
-->
@TWS1405
Adjectives do NOT equal nouns.Descriptors of behavior is NOT name calling.
There is no reality in which name calling is required to be nouns only
“you are eye gougingly stupid” or “your disingenuous attempts to argue are cretinous, idiotic, and illustrates that you are clearly retarded” contain calling you no nouns - and yet every individual on the planet would agree that these sentences constitute name calling.
THIS is a semantic argument, where you confuse “name calling” as in levying of insults, with literally calling someone a name, or specifically a noun.
This is simply an incredibly stupid argument and needs no further rebuttal.
-->
@TWS1405
Again, not all ad hominems are true ad hominems when factually accurate.
there is nothing in the definition of ad hominem attack that disqualifies "factually accurate" personal attacks
the only cases when discussion of someone's personal motives and or state-of-mind and or general character and or personal history and or resume is NOT an ad hominem attack are as follows,
(1) if the person themselves and or their motives and or their state-of-mind and or general character and or personal history and or resume is THE TOPIC ITSELF (insead of a distraction from the topic, which qualifies as a red herring)
OR (2) if the person themselves CLAIMS AUTHORITY by injecting their personal history and or resume and or their OWN motives and or state-of-mind into a discussion that is otherwise NOT about them personally
-->
@Ramshutu
There is no reality in which name calling is required to be nouns only
name - noun
calling - noun
name-calling - noun
To call a name or names, nouns are required, not adjectives.
Adjectives describe (e.g., behavior, demeanor, attitude, actions, etc.) and nouns label by reference to a thing, person, animal, place, etc.
-->
@TWS1405
That so-called appeal to authority is so overused that it is rendered meaningless.When dissertations, scientific papers, legal research, scholarly books, etc. are written they all share one thing in common: citations to authority.Whenever someone invokes an appeal to authority without rebutting it, all they are doing is committing the genetic fallacy.
Firstly, no; it’s not a genetic fallacy; which is where the content of the argument is dismissed based on where it came from - it’s dismissing the argument because it did not contain an argument, and merely asserted the truth of a given statement supported only by the authority.
Secondly, no; If you’re not making an argument, but are instead simply relying on the authority of other peoples arguments: I can absolutely reject them as an argument from authority - especially as you have just thrown them out with no context, no relevance, no argument, and barely any justification for how any thing relates to anything.
Your inability to show any of your claims, your inability to present any case, and inability to directly refute any of the arguments presented - is your problem; one cannot simply shift the burden of proof by loudly asserting that two authors disagree with me; then demand that I prove them wrong, as opposed to you fulfilling your burden of proof and actually justify any of the nonsense you’ve said thus far.
Using their authority to change the burden of proof, is a text book appeal to authority.
Again, not all ad hominems are true ad hominems when factually accurate.
An Ad Hominem argument is, broadly speaking when you the person making an argument is attacked, rather than the substance of their argument. As you are attacking me personally, as opposed to addressing any of the points I raised - almost every post you’ve made castigating me, since capitulating on the substance, qualifies as Ad-hominem: as your counter argument is solely attacks against me - as opposed to attacking the substance of what I’m saying.
The Ad Hominem maybe true - doesn’t matter, if it’s an attack, or criticism of me personally - and not my argument - it broadly qualifies.
To call a name or names, nouns are required, not adjectives.Adjectives describe (e.g., behavior, demeanor, attitude, actions, etc.) and nouns label by reference to a thing, person, animal, place, etc.
Remember the word describe here…
So let me reiterate that your wholly semantic argument, haggling over extract meaning of various words is complete nonsense because your criteria for what constitutes “name calling” excludes clear and obvious examples name calling. Calling someone stupid - is name calling. Calling you grotesquely idiotic, and an insufferably cretinous, impossibly dense individual - is name calling; yet your definition excludes it.
Are you saying those isn’t name calling? Because that would be absurd.
Secondly, and most importantly : you refute yourself with your own links:
Name-calling (first link)
the use of offensive names especially to win an argument or to induce rejection or condemnation (as of a person or project) without objective consideration of the facts
Name: (second link)
2 : a descriptive often disparaging epithetcalled him names
- a characterizing word or phrase accompanying or occurring in place of the name of a person or thing
So as per your provided definition - you are absolutely engaging in the use of offensive disparaging epithet - a characterization - a description. Adjectives.
Now; please stop these continuous red-herrings and absurd ad-hominems - and let’s please get back to the specific arguments related to the title and OP of this thread.
-->
@Ramshutu
That so-called appeal to authority is so overused that it is rendered meaningless.When dissertations, scientific papers, legal research, scholarly books, etc. are written they all share one thing in common: citations to authority.Whenever someone invokes an appeal to authority without rebutting it, all they are doing is committing the genetic fallacy.Firstly, no; it’s not a genetic fallacy; which is where the content of the argument is dismissed based on where it came from - it’s dismissing the argument because it did not contain an argument, and merely asserted the truth of a given statement supported only by the authority.
Damn, if I had a $1 for every time you have been wrong, I would be a millionaire twice over.
An appeal to authority = genetic fallacy when invoked precisely because of it being "dismissed based on where (or who) it came from." It's a catch 22.
since capitulating on the substance
Delusions of grandeur, again.
Secondly, and most importantly : you refute yourself with your own links:
Nope. You are cherry-picking definitions out of context.
Yes, saying "you are an idiot" = name calling. But saying "Your intellectual cowardice knows no bounds," or "yet another fine display of the Dunning Kruger Effect" does NOT equal name calling. They are descriptive observations based on your behavior, demeanor, attitude and obvious lack of a legal education but still think you're a pseudo-legal scholar. Not name calling. Observation. Descriptions. Not epitaphs.
-->
@TWS1405
Damn, if I had a $1 for every time you have been wrong, I would be a millionaire twice over.
Argument by assertion. Saying I’m wrong doesn’t make it true.
An appeal to authority = genetic fallacy when invoked precisely because of it being "dismissed based on where (or who) it came from." It's a catch 22.
False. Absolutely not. Wtf. No. Very no. That’s absurdly wrong. No. I think you misunderstand what citing fallacy is.
Saying that you are making an argument from authority does not make any claims about whether the authority you cite is correct or incorrect. Only that you suggesting they agree with you as a reason for me being wrong is not logically valid.
False. Absolutely not. Wtf. No. Very no. That’s absurdly wrong. No. I think you misunderstand what citing fallacy is.
Saying that you are making an argument from authority does not make any claims about whether the authority you cite is correct or incorrect. Only that you suggesting they agree with you as a reason for me being wrong is not logically valid.
Delusions of grandeur, again.
As hominem. Attacking me not the argument
Nope. You are cherry-picking definitions out of context.
What an absurd, utterly false assertion. This is simply denial of reality.
Name calling: has a single definition - that you cited. It is impossible to cherry pick.
This definition refers to calling people “names”, which has multiple definitions - the one I picked was explicitly related to name calling - not cherry picked.
This means that using the definitions YOU linked - name calling is when someone calls someone by disparaging epithets - which you are doing throughout.
This is not cherry picked (however you using the wrong context for the word “name’ is absolutely cherry picking.
Name calling: has a single definition - that you cited. It is impossible to cherry pick.
This definition refers to calling people “names”, which has multiple definitions - the one I picked was explicitly related to name calling - not cherry picked.
This means that using the definitions YOU linked - name calling is when someone calls someone by disparaging epithets - which you are doing throughout.
This is not cherry picked (however you using the wrong context for the word “name’ is absolutely cherry picking.
Yes, saying "you are an idiot" = name calling.
But saying "Your intellectual cowardice knows no bounds," or "yet another fine display of the Dunning Kruger Effect" does NOT equal name calling. They are descriptive observations based on your behavior, demeanor, attitude and obvious lack of a legal education but still think you're a pseudo-legal scholar. Not name calling. Observation. Descriptions. Not epitaphs.
Absolutely name calling as per the definition; unless you’re trying to make the argument that that “I’m not ‘name-calling’ I’m just using repeated insulting descriptive language about you. Because that would be a pretty stupid semantic argument; that basic concedes the original point I was making.
But let’s not forget this is an absolutely ridiculous semantic derailing of the entire thread by you, why on earth are you spending so much time an energy haggling over the phrase “name calling”, as if whether it’s “name calling”, or just “repeatedly insulting me” makes any practical difference - the entire thread is about crime statistics, and you being called a racist by liberals. Why on earth are you engaging with me over a half dozen posts about whether name calling requires nouns; when you haven’t addressed any of the actual substance of my previous replies:
Specifically:
1.) As shown - adding value statements, implying value, making textual errors applying to an entire race, and your general abrasive tone and negative behaviour is a pattern of behaviour at the most charitable - is easily confused with racism. And it’s not unreasonable for people to make that presumption of you.
2.) you’ve consistently fudged the data, posted poor links, cherry picked correlations about wedlock births and crime rates and otherwise Attributed various causes where the data clearly and indisputably shows othewise. You’ve made false claims and statements about what the data shows, denies data points that were clearly and indisputably accurate and otherwise demonstrate a poor and biased grasp of the facts.
3.) You’re entire argument is predicated on a false premise; you repeatedly claim the left - including myself deny data - and yet have repeatedly failed to show examples: equivocate about what that claim even means, and contradict yourself when pinned down.
-->
@TWS1405
This thread seems to have gone off the rails, away from facts and scientific analysis into emotive outbursts and name calling, lets bring it back rational analysis and look at the science .
Science has studied racism extensively and determined what the root cause is:
Penis Envy
Scientifically speaking, studies have shown that racists have very small naughty parts, TWS1405's probably looks like a button.
-->
@Sidewalker
-->@TWS1405This thread seems to have gone off the rails, away from facts and scientific analysis into emotive outbursts and name calling, lets bring it back rational analysis and look at the science .Science has studied racism extensively and determined what the root cause is:Penis EnvyScientifically speaking, studies have shown that racists have very small naughty parts, TWS1405's probably looks like a button.
And yet here you are committing your own ad hominem argument attacking me. (hypocrisy)
Nothing I have said throughout this thread is racist. Truth does not equal racism.
Thanks for adding to the derailment.
-->
@Athias
Except you never provided evidence either. You played the exact same game as I did.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Except you never provided evidence either.
Cite verbatim the claim you think I made, which requires evidence.
You played the exact same game as I did.
I don't play games when it comes to argumentation. I'm well aware of onus probandi and any obligation an affirmation on my part would create. I don't affirm arguments which I can't substantiate. You, on the other hand, did. There's no stalemate, here.
You have yet to substantiate your claim--out of either refusal or incapacity. It's as simple as that.
-->
@Athias
Quit asking for evidence and provide some of you're own, silly.
-->
@TWS1405
In my opinion, we no longer live in a fact/truth based reality. We live in a feelings based reality. Everything is based on feelings not facts or truth. To tell the truth is to be a conspiracy theorist in todays world. When you find yourself agreeing with the mainstream on virtually everything, its time to reevaluate what you believe with facts and truth and ignore the cacophony and drones of the mainstream. Ask yourself if you just repeat what you hear and read on the internet. Ask yourself if you can make a coherent argument without the assistance of google or the internet to do it for you.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Quit asking for evidence and provide some of you're own, silly.
Which claim have I made requires evidence? Don't forget to quote me.
-->
@3RU7AL
have you considered running those same statistics specifically for "economic status"
I have. Generally speaking, wealthy blacks are more likely than poor whites to commit violent crimes. While race and economic status are predictors of likely violent behavior, race is the better predictor
-->
@Reece101
What are your solutions to these problems? Preferably not of the Hitler type
Conservative solutions to these problems are changing policies to fix the break up of the black family. For example destroying the welfare state that encourages single mother hood, reducing the things that lead to crime so less black people end up in prison and can help to raise their children etc.
-->
@3RU7AL
like what ?"black culture" ?why not just say "black culture" in the resolution ?
Cracker culture honestly. The hillbilly has died out but can be traced back to even before America and the culture was passed onto blacks from whites. The culture has not persisted so much in whites because society did it's part to wipe it out. For example hill billies we're cut off from large portions of society unless they could repress or drop the negative cultural aspects of the culture. The culture passed onto black Americans was actually almost on the brink of dying out as well, until it was made into "black culture" and propped up by leftists.
Sad too, because the continuation of hillbilly culture is a bad thing for the portions of the black community it affects
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Conservative solutions to these problems are changing policies to fix the break up of the black family. For example destroying the welfare state that encourages single mother hood, reducing the things that lead to crime so less black people end up in prison and can help to raise their children etc.
To be clear to get rid of single mother welfare altogether or just welfare that encourages it?
And what about affordability and wage increases?
Can you show me any prominent conservative platform running on such policies?
-->
@Reece101
To be clear to get rid of single mother welfare altogether or just welfare that encourages it?
Not altogether no. I might not even cut back, but at the very least make sure they receive the same level of welfare even if their baby daddy decides to marry them, so they aren't incentivized to be single parents .
And what about affordability and wage increases?
I believe this can occur with things such as "ban the box" which prevents asking people randomly if they are felons and by making sure prison doesn't serve as a type of felon university. If a felon gets out of prison and nobody will hire them because of a criminal record and now they have all these connections to other criminals from doing time, well then we as a society have a problem.
Can you show me any prominent conservative platform running on such policies?
None that I am aware of. Sadly even if they were their campaign would not be focused on wording it in any such way. This is why I think it's important for voters to work with various special interest groups that can help them influence elected officials.
I did just Google it. A lot of what I suggested such as ban the box is getting bipartisan support in Pennsylvania and slowly other states as well
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Conservative, globalist, I don’t care what you call it. I think it’s good.
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
What's more, even young black people who follow the rules and are never incarcerated are less likely than similar white people to accumulate wealth as they get older. As of 2012, the median household wealth of black participants in the study who had never been incarcerated at some point in their lives was $16,200. [**]
-->
@3RU7AL
An unfortunate result of not being able to think 5 minutes into the future. There is a reason luxury brands target young black people.
There is a reason rent a centers and payday advance places are able to do so well in those areas. It wouldn't be possible with a group of people that can delay gratification
There is a reason rent a centers and payday advance places are able to do so well in those areas. It wouldn't be possible with a group of people that can delay gratification
SHE LIED ABOUT THE POLICE: https://youtu.be/InsuRkKCdFE
ENOUGH WITH THE ANTI-WHITE NARRATIVE: Enough with the ANTI WHITE NARRATIVE - YouTube
Ah HA!!!!!
Just made a comment on FascistBook on a video depicting black criminals thieving from a high end store in droves, made the obvious comment “blacks people thieving again,” and I get kicked off (FB jail) for two days!!! Why??? For stating the obvious truth shown in the damn video allowed to be posted to their platform!! FB called my comment “hate speech.”
This is the point of this thread. Make a truthful statement of the “in your face” obvious facts and I get out in FascistBook jail.