Total posts: 2,768
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
ok, this makes a lot of sense if you don't care what the person you're interacting with intended
How does me caring - or not - change the validity of what I said?
there is rarely, and i mean rarely, "only one reasonable interpretation"
By all means correct me if you think my interpretation is incorrect or unreasonable. Otherwise this is more of an empty platitude than anything that I need to respond to.
why not simply ask "is this what you meant to say ?"
By all means explain how the validity or context of my argument changes depending on appending that phrase somewhere. Otherwise this is another platitude, as opposed to something relevant to the points I’m raising.
probably because they feel forced into a defensive posture
If someone is unwilling to clarify their position, because someone questions it - a debate site is probably not the best place for them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
THE SPEAKER THEMSELVESis the ONLYperson who can confirmif your paraphrasingor summaryof THEIR OWN ARGUMENTmatches their OWN INTENT and or BELIEF
I showed that the logical implications of the explicit argument he made, is explicitly white supremacy. This would be true regardless of what he intended.
I also explained how the only reasonable interpretation of what he said is exactly as I paraphrased.
Thus far he’s refused to clarify what he actually meant - so the only thing I have to work with is what he said.
Denying he meant something whilst refusing to clarify what he actually meant, whilst what he said appears to clearly indicate what I said it did; and definitely logically implies what I said regardless of intent or belief - means that whilst technically true, is largely irrelevant.
this is a purely voluntary interaction
And this is relevant how?
If you read my post - I am pointing out the hypocrisy of someone who refuses to engage on a point multiple times, resorts to name calling, and has a propensity for making excuses and capitulating on responses - also calling someone an intellectual coward.
That he is not forced to respond to me explaining why he is a colossal unmitigated hypocrite in this specific respect, is largely irrelevant.
Created:
-->
@Avery
I addressed it and you ended up ignoring that LOL. I argued that your standard is arbitrary and holds no impact. Why does it matter that it's 3x? Why is that considered an "extreme response" objectively? Why is the negative gap of Democrats not considered "an extreme response" when it's the only negative response? Here's your chance to try again with those questions
I explained all of this in the last two posts. I even gave an example explaining it. You appear fixated on your straw man about extreme response.
You're just equivocating to slander.You are fully capable of understanding that "extreme response" sounds like extremist ideology or something totally wild. You didn't just mean "a very large different in +\- compared to other groups". You want to make only the Republican response invalid based on arbitrary standards, but you're smokescreening that with loaded language.
(1) slander is verbal, libel is written. (2) at no point have I suggested the Republican response is invalid - that’s something you made up (3) the first time I mentioned “extreme” response was in post 40 - which was clearly and was unambiguously a statistical argument. Before this I referred to the result being “heavily biased by republican responses” - which is clearly suggesting the result, rather than the republicans was the thing that was biased - a statistical argument.
I’ve been extremely clear throughout - and frankly you should know by now I don’t bother hiding behind wordplay when I think something. You just didn’t read, or understand what I said; paid no attention to my clarification.
I’ve been extremely clear throughout - and frankly you should know by now I don’t bother hiding behind wordplay when I think something. You just didn’t read, or understand what I said; paid no attention to my clarification.
You’ve now been called on this ridiculous straw man, and now have to resort to “nuh-uh!”
Often =/= always.
Yes - and because I never said, nor implied “always”, your suggestion that I did is a straw man.
True, they can't both be right. The poll doesn't objectively capture which race has people who are "mostly racist". That's certainly a good pick up from you.
However, what the poll does capture is which race is doing enough for that whole race to be considered "mostly racist" by individual people. Again, people are voting based on their experiences with the races. And that's how the poll is determining that Black people are the most racist: by seeing how often view their race as "mostly racist" (not through measurements of racism levels). That satisfies the OP's claim of Black Americans being more racist than Whites or any other race.
The bolded portion of this post, is an unsupported assertion you make that you cannot possibly support from any of the data, and have no reason to conclude is true or accurate, and every reason (see my last post) to believe could be completely untrue.
What this unsupported assertion does, is assume that the responses reflect actual reality relatively accurately (if they don’t reflect reality accurately - then your and the OP conclusion does not follow.)
Or in other words, in order for you to conclude that this poll represents how racist people actually are reality (meaning C1), you bake in the assumption that the poll represents how racist people actually are in reality into your premise.
This is assuming your own conclusion: begging the question.
What this unsupported assertion does, is assume that the responses reflect actual reality relatively accurately (if they don’t reflect reality accurately - then your and the OP conclusion does not follow.)
Or in other words, in order for you to conclude that this poll represents how racist people actually are reality (meaning C1), you bake in the assumption that the poll represents how racist people actually are in reality into your premise.
This is assuming your own conclusion: begging the question.
Your standard of evidence isn't required to draw the conclusions required to defend the OP.
It actually is; for you to make claims about how the poll reflects reality - you must have confidence that the poll reflects reality - you assert that confidence, despite no reasonable confidence existing.
People aren't going to think "most" people of a race are racist, due to absolutely no reason. Implying that people just decide whole groups are racist for no reason is unreasonable and conspiratorial.
Since when did I say “absolutely no reason”, what an absurd straw-man! Lol.
There are many reasons that aren’t dependent on the answer being based on reality.
Nazi Germany - as a particularly extreme example - were German perceptions of Jews accurate and based on experience - or based propaganda and manipulation?
Is the average republicans opinion on the validity of the election based upon a clear exposure to the facts and arguments on both sides; or as a result of peer and media opinion leading them to draw their preferred conclusion?
Our perceptions are wrong all the time, in multiple ways for multiple reasons - we even have a long list of established ways in which human perceptions are generally wrong (they’re called cognitive biases) - you have no rational basis to conclude the perceptions are valid here.
What actually happens is that people have bad experiences with different races. Maybe these people get called a slur. Maybe these people see the race talking badly about other races on Twitter. Maybe these people see the race attend a BLM, KKK or La Raza rally. If these people have enough bad experiences, they'll start to think the race is all racist. The poll captures how frequently this has happened for each race, and hence determines which race is the most racist through an indirect method (i.e. the highest percentage of racists).
It's a completely reasonable to assume people have some reason for claiming most of a race is racist.
Again - the bold portion is a completely unsupported assertion you make that you can’t possibly know, and have no ability to support.
This assertion is what makes your argument beginning the question.
This assertion is what makes your argument beginning the question.
...but the poll didn't have that result and didn't involve those people.You need to find problems with the poll that exists, because as it stands, none of the problems you outlined here affect the poll's data (or at least you haven't proven it).
Try dealing with the poll's data, rather than forging a problem for a poll that doesn't exist.
If you read my argument, my critique is against the poll, the poll question and the validity of your inferences.
Specifically - Your using answers to the poll questions to draw inferences about the population the poll is asking about. If the poll was applied to a known population, using the same question, and your criteria - and gives an answer that doesn’t make sense (which it doesn’t) - it calls into question whether the inference is valid.
My point being is that how many racists is not a good measure without some inclusion of how severe the racism is - as the example you dismissed shows.
Specifically - Your using answers to the poll questions to draw inferences about the population the poll is asking about. If the poll was applied to a known population, using the same question, and your criteria - and gives an answer that doesn’t make sense (which it doesn’t) - it calls into question whether the inference is valid.
My point being is that how many racists is not a good measure without some inclusion of how severe the racism is - as the example you dismissed shows.
I find your hyper-cynical view that people are totally incapable of forming somewhat valid opinions via perception to be totally unreasonable and conspiratorial.
Again - another straw man. Where did I say that people are totally incapable of forming partially valid opinions via perception? Lol? This is an absurd take - and clearly not what I said, or implied at all.
If you pay clear attention, I am saying that perception are often not reflective of reality; there are many reasons and scenarios in which perceptions don’t reflect reality - there are many scenarios and situations in which perceptions are changed by things other than the reality of what is being perceived.
What you’re doing - is pretending that’s not the case - and assert that these perceptions must be broadly accurate despite no basis upon which to draw that conclusion: as shown, this is begging the question.
If you pay clear attention, I am saying that perception are often not reflective of reality; there are many reasons and scenarios in which perceptions don’t reflect reality - there are many scenarios and situations in which perceptions are changed by things other than the reality of what is being perceived.
What you’re doing - is pretending that’s not the case - and assert that these perceptions must be broadly accurate despite no basis upon which to draw that conclusion: as shown, this is begging the question.
Try to read my posts - there were like 3/4 pretty outlandishly absurd misrepresentations of what I said in your reply here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Avery
Why can't you just address the arguments without looking for an excuse to call someone a c*nt?The whole point of being on a debate website is to discuss arguments, rather than looking for a chance to abuse people.
I didn’t call anyone a c*nt, and is you paid attention, I did address an argument…
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Transgenders cannot, by medical definition, be medically fit for duty
Any reason why? After physical recovery from surgery, and hormone treatment - it would see there is no actual medical impact that could impede medical fitness, no?
let alone meet the physical fitness requirements and uniform and grooming standards.
What aspect of transgenderism do you think means they can’t groom themselves correctly, or can’t meet physical standards?
Nor are they deployable.
On what basis?
They make a mockery of the Armed Forces.
Having to live in a country full of tw*ts like you being constantly nasty about them, trying to convince them they don’t belong, yet still want to push through that hardship and sign up to fight and possibly die for that country : that seems like the type of drive, moxie and patriotism that the armed forces stand for, no?
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Before the huge fashion shows of drag queens making a mockery of women, showing/proving men can be better than women, there was pedophilia.
You think drag queens show/prove men can be better than woman?
I mean I’m not judging - but that’s kinda of a weird sentiment to express for someone who seems to not like the concept of the transgender
Pedophiles are in fact transgenders. Homosexuals and even bisexuals in disguise.Children are being targeted in masse, and if adults do not do anything about it... our future generations will be the end of us all.
Is this based on any actual data? Or just your personal opinion that you can’t support?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Avery
Being called a racist in that context is designed to silence your free speech.
Freedom of speech relates solely to freedom from government interference or restriction on you expressing your opinion. It does not afford you protection to not be called a c*nt if someone thinks you’re being a c*nt.
If you don’t like the idea of someone expressing their opinion, with the intent that in doing so someone else won’t express theirs - you probably should not read any of the internet.
Or your own post..
Created:
-->
@Avery
No, you're not just making a statistical point lol
He asserts, whilst completely ignoring the statistical point I just made.
Indeed I am; I know that may not be convenient, but alas - that’s the point I’m making.
To reiterate: the +/- between black and white was +37; 3x the difference of the +\- of liberals. Meaning that the substantially large +/- of their response compared to other groups. As republicans are typically 1/3 ish of the population - and is 3x the equivalent difference for liberals: it can be considered an “extreme response” statistically speaking IE - a wide statistical margin compared to other groups; and this biases the overall numbers.
For example: if independents (1/3)equally liked blue and pink. Democrats (1/3) favoured pink over blue by 10 points but republicans (1/3) favoured blue over pink by 40 points. That extreme response (small group with a high +\- compared to their groups) skews the data - such that how the population favors pink over blue is as much of a statement about how strongly republicans feel about it as it is about the population as a whole feels.
It’s an issue of mean vs standard deviation.
Indeed I am; I know that may not be convenient, but alas - that’s the point I’m making.
To reiterate: the +/- between black and white was +37; 3x the difference of the +\- of liberals. Meaning that the substantially large +/- of their response compared to other groups. As republicans are typically 1/3 ish of the population - and is 3x the equivalent difference for liberals: it can be considered an “extreme response” statistically speaking IE - a wide statistical margin compared to other groups; and this biases the overall numbers.
For example: if independents (1/3)equally liked blue and pink. Democrats (1/3) favoured pink over blue by 10 points but republicans (1/3) favoured blue over pink by 40 points. That extreme response (small group with a high +\- compared to their groups) skews the data - such that how the population favors pink over blue is as much of a statement about how strongly republicans feel about it as it is about the population as a whole feels.
It’s an issue of mean vs standard deviation.
Who are you to determine that "an extreme response" is the Republican one? Why is the Black difference not "an extreme response?" Why is the White difference not "an extreme response?" Why is the Liberal view going into a negative not "an extreme response?" You've made up a fuzzy standard without any logical backing. Your "extreme response" claim is arbitrary…. <waffle snip>
You seem to have it in your head that by “biased” I mean “their opinion is biased” - as opposed to the strength of the response biased the overall rates , and by “extreme response” that I mean “politically extreme” instead of “a very large difference in +\- compared to other groups”.
Given that one of things are true - explained over the last multiple posts - your response here is a mere deliberate straw man.
Given that one of things are true - explained over the last multiple posts - your response here is a mere deliberate straw man.
You immediately conceded ground by now saying: "Perceptions are perceptions they are sometimes true; often not", instead of your original: "Peoples perceptions about almost everything are wrong all the time." It's good to see that I'm making you more reasonable.
Huh, Those two things mean exactly the same thing. Perceptions are often wrong vs Perceptions are wrong all the time - are expressing identical sentiment. I think you have misread it by thinking I’m saying all perceptions are wrong all of the time. I’m not - only that it’s very common for perceptions to be wrong. I await the flurry of semantic nit picking; consider this, however:
You often say stupid things - you say stupid things all the time: mean the same thingz
Your analogy is not analogous because the perception of measuring someone's intelligence is far more complex than determining whether someone was racist to you.If you go up to a Black man and call him the n word or cotton picker, there's no doubt in anyone's perception as to whether that's racist or not. It's never easy or quick to determine how smart someone is.
And, again, the thread is about 'who is the most racist', not 'how racist is the most racist?' But sure, sometimes it gets complicated whether someone was racist or not, but that's built into the poll because ALL races and groups polled suffer from this shortcoming, not just the Black group. So, unless you think this shortcoming means there is no racism at all (which is shown wrong in the previous paragraph), the poll result remains valid.
For whatever reasons, people are voting Black people as the most racist in America. Again, we're not trying to find out why for every, individual, singular circumstance. Again, we're not trying to determine precisely how racist they are.
You basically reiterate this sentiment for the couple of paragraphs.
Let’s wind back. This poll is a measure of peoples perceptions - what people think about specific things. You obviously can’t argue with this - because that’s what the poll is asking.
You are arguing that these perceptions indicate reality - how things are. I’m not entirely sure what that reality that you’re trying to show as you’re nor consistent with what you’re saying: but the options are:
(C1) There are more black racists than white racists.
(C2) The level of racism in blacks is stronger than than in whites.
I’m working under the assumption that you mean C1.
This poll asks people whether they think that more than 50% of a given group is racist. That was the question: “are most X racist”.
Some people answered yes - some people answered no. They can’t both be right - so we know for certain a large percentage of people in that poll have perceptions that are wrong. Are most blacks actually racist? If yes: then 63% of people underestimate black racism. If no: 37% are overestimating black racism. To accept this poll is to necessarily accept that there are a ton of people under or overestimating the amount racism.
You have absolutely no clue as to whether one side is under or overestimating; you also have absolutely no clue by how much: you have no clue as to whether it’s different based on response. You don’t have enough information to even speculate how broadly off the numbers are from reality. Thus the poll cannot show how many racists there in any individual group.
What you’re doing - is wildly speculating, with assumptions you’re pulling out of your ass - that despite perceptions being definitely wrong; and despite you having absolutely no justification whatsoever for whether anyones responses have any basis in reality, or are simply false perceptions based on any number of biases of the respondents - you can definitely assume they’re representing some actual aspect of how the people they are perceiving are.
Or in other words - the only way you can argue what you’re arguing is if you make stuff up that you can’t possibly know, and could very easily be completely untrue.
You dismiss this with:
Let’s wind back. This poll is a measure of peoples perceptions - what people think about specific things. You obviously can’t argue with this - because that’s what the poll is asking.
You are arguing that these perceptions indicate reality - how things are. I’m not entirely sure what that reality that you’re trying to show as you’re nor consistent with what you’re saying: but the options are:
(C1) There are more black racists than white racists.
(C2) The level of racism in blacks is stronger than than in whites.
I’m working under the assumption that you mean C1.
This poll asks people whether they think that more than 50% of a given group is racist. That was the question: “are most X racist”.
Some people answered yes - some people answered no. They can’t both be right - so we know for certain a large percentage of people in that poll have perceptions that are wrong. Are most blacks actually racist? If yes: then 63% of people underestimate black racism. If no: 37% are overestimating black racism. To accept this poll is to necessarily accept that there are a ton of people under or overestimating the amount racism.
You have absolutely no clue as to whether one side is under or overestimating; you also have absolutely no clue by how much: you have no clue as to whether it’s different based on response. You don’t have enough information to even speculate how broadly off the numbers are from reality. Thus the poll cannot show how many racists there in any individual group.
What you’re doing - is wildly speculating, with assumptions you’re pulling out of your ass - that despite perceptions being definitely wrong; and despite you having absolutely no justification whatsoever for whether anyones responses have any basis in reality, or are simply false perceptions based on any number of biases of the respondents - you can definitely assume they’re representing some actual aspect of how the people they are perceiving are.
Or in other words - the only way you can argue what you’re arguing is if you make stuff up that you can’t possibly know, and could very easily be completely untrue.
You dismiss this with:
Again, we're not trying to find out why for every, individual, singular circumstance.
Correct - but this is a straw man - you don’t need to know every instance - but you absolutely need confidence that the answers are being given broadly for the same reasons, and that those reasons broadly align with how many racists there are. The more uncertainty in the former - the more in the latter.
You don’t know the reason anyone responded to that question. You don’t know any of their motivations, or reasoning, you don’t know if the answers were due to social bias, biased experiences, interpretation of the question, or what went into their thinking - etc.
It could be accurate - or it could be wildly inaccurate because of the broad biases of the groups being questioned. You don’t know which - and you have no information at all that would allow you to even speculate about which it could be, or by how much.
You’re just pretending that you have enough knowledge to conclude these answers are representative enough of how much actual racism there is - but you don’t - you can’t: it’s just pulled out of your ass.
As you have to make these completely baseless assumptions - in order to draw your conclusion - it’s effectively begging the question.
Not once, in any part of this thread, have I said anything to anyone, to imply or directly say, that I meant "how racist they are". I dragged that meaning out of your words to say specifically that we're not talking about that. You're even directly responding to one of the parts where I explain this distinctionAnd now you're trying to accuse me of being the one equivocating between 'who is more racist' and 'how racist they are'.
“Most racist” could mean number of racists, or how strongly racist. “More racist” could mean number of racists, or how strongly racist. You’ve clarified the ambiguous wording throughout - so thank you.
The key point you ignore - is that the whole point of this line of debate , is not to haggle over wording - but that if the poll doesn’t tell you C2 above - the poll is meaningless; it doesn’t tell you anything valuable.
Because, as I said - if 25% of whites are KKK members lynching black people, and 51% of blacks people harboured some minor animosity: then if everyone’s perceptions were accurate, 100% would say most blacks are racist, and 0% would say that most whites were racist - the answer of the poll as an effective measure of racism is utterly meaningless. This was my main point- which you ignored.
If through this sloppy and inconsistent language - you only mean C1 - great. You’re agreeing that this is meaningless as a measure of racism.
The key point you ignore - is that the whole point of this line of debate , is not to haggle over wording - but that if the poll doesn’t tell you C2 above - the poll is meaningless; it doesn’t tell you anything valuable.
Because, as I said - if 25% of whites are KKK members lynching black people, and 51% of blacks people harboured some minor animosity: then if everyone’s perceptions were accurate, 100% would say most blacks are racist, and 0% would say that most whites were racist - the answer of the poll as an effective measure of racism is utterly meaningless. This was my main point- which you ignored.
If through this sloppy and inconsistent language - you only mean C1 - great. You’re agreeing that this is meaningless as a measure of racism.
How do you think people are voting on the poll then
No clue. I have no idea of the motivation. Nor What factors into the vote. I don’t know whether the perceptions are accurate or biased; I don’t even know what any of the people even thought of as racism, or if there were biases in their interpretation, or differences between groups. Whites could be by far the most racist; and yet perceptions could be biased the other way: or could be indicative that blacks are generally racist in some really low level way, and whites are generally not racist other than a large core of very racist individuals - it could be literally any of those things: and I don’t have basis to even speculate as to which it is.
You don’t know either; however you pretend that you do in order to assert the conclusion you want.
You don’t know either; however you pretend that you do in order to assert the conclusion you want.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405
Really?
Yes - you literally said “straw man”; didn’t explain why, nor justified why or how my argument misrepresented your position - indeed, you didn’t even clarify what your position actually was. That makes it an assertion.
So what you're saying...." = classic strawman fallacy.
Only if I misrepresent what you’re saying, which I didn’t - you have yet to say how I actually did that
Yes, you are. And it is in black and white for all to see.
How exactly? Why did what I said misrepresent your position; I explained why it’s the only way of interpreting what you said.
Your word salad, jumbled arguments, and circular reasoning is quite apparent.
Now this is an Ad Hominem!
You got caught. Own it. Stop being a liar. Stop being an intellectual coward. Have a little integrity. If that is even possible.
And another Ad Hom!
Stop being an intellectual coward? You assert I’m making a straw man twice, refuse to explain why, or clarify what your position actually - then call me a bunch of names. Hardly the pinnacle intellectual bravery.
I - on the other hand - explained, logically, why that particular position is white supremacy - you have no answer to that : and I explained how and why my characterization of your position is entirely accurate - you have no answer. I’ve responded to every point.
It’s hardly intellectual cowardice to not agree with some nonsense you just made up from nothing.
I presume, however, that you’re going to round off this exchange by calling me names and refusing to actually respond to any of the arguments, throwing out a number of excuses as to why you wont respond; and then capitulate like you have in every other thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405
No, that's not what I am saying...AT ALL! Strawman - Definition & Examples | LF (logicalfallacies.org)
He asserts without justification.
I said:
2.) Whites and blacks are subject to identical social conditions and constraints - but black people do worse because they’re not as good as whites.
Is white supremacy - you replied.
“Everyone born in America has equal rights, equal access to anything and everything they want to achieve. There is no right or guarantee to equal outcomes. One only gets out of life what they put into it. Just because you are not as good as another =/= supremacy of any kind.”
The only reasonable or possible way of taking this statement was that you disagree there are any barriers for blacks - and the suggestion you make is that they’re lack of success is due to not being as good as another. You even say the words.
Doesn’t really matter though: because if you think lesser success metrics in black populations is because of something about them; that means that you are stating there is something about black people that is isn’t as good as in white people.
That’s the logical implication of your argument - whether you like it or not.
You not liking it does not make it a straw man. And given it is absolutely the implication of what you just said: it’s not straw man.
Yet another Strawman - Definition & Examples | LF (logicalfallacies.org) and Ad Hominem - Definition & Examples | LF (logicalfallacies.org)Yet another Strawman - Definition & Examples | LF (logicalfallacies.org) and Ad Hominem - Definition & Examples | LF (logicalfallacies.org)
Firstly, I’m not misrepresenting you - so not a straw man.
Secondly, my argument is that a given position is a white supremacist position. You disagreed that it was a white supremacy position.
Demonstrating that the position in question is the definition of white supremacy is not an Ad Hominem - it’s proving the point I was making, and proving your argument wrong. That you also find it insulting to you, doesn’t make it an ad hominem.
You keep tripping up in your fallacies all the time. Perhaps you should read some of these links, it may be helpful for you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
what are your proposed solutions ?
Dunno - agreeing that there is a problem is a good first step; and perhaps not make the problem worse.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405
Everyone born in America has equal rights, equal access to anything and everything they want to achieve. There is no right or guarantee to equal outcomes. One only gets out of life what they put into it. Just because you are not as good as another =/= supremacy of any kind.
So what you’re saying is (2) that the difference in outcomes between whites and blacks is because blacks “are not as good as” whites.
Racist: a person who believes in racism, the doctrine that one's own racial group is superior or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
If your belief is true - you meet the dictionary definition of a racist.
White Supremacy: the belief, theory, or doctrine that white people are inherently superior to people from all other racial and ethnic groups, especially Black people, and are therefore rightfully the dominant group in any society
… and pretty much the dictionary definition of a white supremacy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405
There is a substantial list of disparities between whites and blacks. Educational attainment, unemployment, health, poverty, you name it - the list is as long as my arm.
There are two explanations for these disparities:
1.) Whites and Blacks are subject to different social conditions and constraints that lead to one being advantages over the other.
2.) Whites and blacks are subject to identical social conditions and constraints - but black people do worse because they’re not as good as whites.
(1) is white privilege. (2) is white supremacy.
Created:
Posted in:
In no particular order Tejerertics, whiteflame, RationalMadman, SemperFortis
Debate is about being able to argue any point, and I think these people are able to do that really well.
I wouldn’t classify Oromagi, myself or Barney as noobsnipers - as much as people who are really, really good at arguing points they think are right. That is a skill in and of itself, but less in keeping with traditional “good at debate”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405
If you call someone fat - whether or not it is true does change whether you are perceived as a dick for saying it.
Being labelled a racist - is more about your fixation with posting a never ending list of negative things about black people or subsets of black people that can easily be interpreted as making value statements - and is clearly perpetuating the 200 year old stereotype of the black man as a brute or thug.
That’s the specific issue. You know that this is the specific issue, and you keep doing it anyways, presumably as some sort of martyrdom complex: that if you wrap racist sentiment with facts - and get called out for it, you can complain about being called racist for citing facts; but that’s not true: people call you racist because you are repeatedly fixating on all the negative criminal data you can find about black people.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
I’m not sure why you’re accusing me of not responding considering you’ve essentially given up on replying to my arguments in every one of your threads I’ve been in
I managed to find a few sample chapters of the book: Let’s look at one of the bigger chunks you posted:
Chapter 3, titled "Everything you know about the second amendment is wrong" is likewise based on a false premise, resulting in an equally achieved false conclusion.
Let’s go back to this at the end.
Within a few sentences he makes a completely false assertion about the events that took place at the Capital on January 6th.
Technically correct, but likely mundane as it’s been my experience that most published books like this normally take over a year to go through the publishing process - so may simply have been written after officer Sicknicks death - attributed to violence initially, but before the cause of death was ruled. Either way; you present this as if it’s critical to the point the author is making; but it is not - this is really more of a throwaway statement - making this complaint a red herring - as it completely evades the central point the author was making here - which was that you don’t need guns to overthrow the government, and pointed out the disparate treatment that would have occurred has the crowd been predominantly white.
Mystal then rambles on about self-defense:
"Self defence is a philosophical right, but that right was not grounded in the “original” meaning if the second amendment; self-defense is not mentioned once in the text of the Constitution."
You claim the author rambles about self defence, and then go on to quote him but removing a key portion of the quote (I took the liberty of including the full quote above, with the chopped out part in italics) that appropriately sets the context. He’s clearly not claiming that self defence is not a right at all - but that the original meaning of second amendment was not to provide self defence. This makes what you did a clear cut example of quote mining.
Neither is the right of women to have an abortion, yet Mystal is a staunch supporter of it, even citing the Constitution in support of it.
This is called a tu quoque - attacking someone for alleged hypocrisy rather than attacking his point. Importantly, you have absolutely missed the authors point here:
The pro abortion and second amendment arguments would only be in conflict if his argument was that if a right is not explicitly written - it doesn’t exist. That isn’t his argument at all; meaning that you’re objection also misrepresents his point - and is thus a straw-man.
His point, and he’s pretty explicit - is that the original intent was never self defence, it’s an evolution of the second amendment - a modern interpretation; while the modern interpretation may be reasonable - why shouldn’t this new evolved meaning take into consideration the realities of the modern world - this is almost explicitly what he goes in to say.
The pro abortion and second amendment arguments would only be in conflict if his argument was that if a right is not explicitly written - it doesn’t exist. That isn’t his argument at all; meaning that you’re objection also misrepresents his point - and is thus a straw-man.
His point, and he’s pretty explicit - is that the original intent was never self defence, it’s an evolution of the second amendment - a modern interpretation; while the modern interpretation may be reasonable - why shouldn’t this new evolved meaning take into consideration the realities of the modern world - this is almost explicitly what he goes in to say.
This is an ad hominem; you’re attacking him, not his point.
Just because self-defense isn't mentioned doesn't mean it isn't intended, because it is in the historical context. In order for the people to defend a nation, we must first be able to defend ourselves. In other words, #selfdefense. Just like how women have the right to an abortion via the right to privacy in their medical status and decisions.
The book explains that for 200 or so years - the second amendment was understood not to be about personal defence - how various rulings bear this out, and it wasn’t until the 1970s - and a fairly recent Supreme Court ruling that changes it. It cites court rulings that interpretation of the second amendment was in relation to a well regulated militia - and that the change relates to how the NRA began pushing the self defence position from 1977. You appear to ignore all that, and suggest that his argument that the second amendment is invalid because self defence was intended; this is both a straw man as you are misrepresenting his point - and a fairly dishonest one, because you chop our the fundamental points he makes whilst critiquing the rest.
Here is where Mystal really goes off the deep end regurgitating another poorly asserted argument through the prism of racism by Carol Anderson:"There was an original purpose to the Second Amendment, but it wasn't to keep people safe. It was to preserve white supremacy and slavery."
This is so ridiculous on its face it is almost not worth dignifying with a response or retort, but prudence demands one. The root history of the second amendment can be traced back to free men defending their home, land and family rooted in self-defense (i.e. self-preservation).
This links mostly validates the argument of the writer. In section IV - the politics of the founding fathers - the entire argument about guns, and the politics behind the second amendment was not about self defence - but around protection against government control of the militias. Which is exactly the point the author is making. While the history of gun rights goes back hundreds of years - the background do them do not necessarily impact what the second amendment was intended to do. While I have no doubt the founding fathers probably wanted people to be free to defend themselves personally a that wasn’t the purpose of the amendment. Recall your own argument below: “Complete rubbish! If that were even remotely true, then the amendment would reflect that in the language and it simply does not.”
"The founding fathers drew from Biblical principles….."
The Meaning, History, & Purpose of the Second Amendment ~ The Imaginative Conservative
The source you cite mostly asserts it’s conclusion, offering more Bible quotes to support the right of general self defence than reference to any individual that influenced the second amendment - of which there were none. I can’t really find any legal argument or reference to the thinking of the drafters as opposed to just citations of what they had in their head
Mystal then "retorts" the following:
"The Second Amendment is in the Constitution because Patrick Henry and George Mason won a debate against James Madison. Henry and Mason wanted the Second Amendment in there to guard against slave revolts"Complete rubbish! If that were even remotely true, then the amendment would reflect that in the language and it simply does not. See the above quote and cited links regarding the #TRUE history of the second amendment, which has absolutely nothing to do with "preserv(ing) white supremacy and slavery."
An appeal to the stone; followed by an argument by assertion. Indeed, you leave out multiple sections of the book that goes onto explain exactly why this conclusion can be reached. It’s also partially backed up by your own link above.
The basics he lays out are pretty clear. Madison proposed the bill of rights - including the second amendment - as an electoral promise given because of the issues Mason and Henry raised; the specific issue was that the federal government controlled the militia and meant the government could legally disarm them; and render them ineffective; and as the North outnumbered the south - and detested slavery (as Henry pointed out), the North could neglect the south’s militia - which were their primary means to put down slave rebellions. Thus, on a practical level - yeah - the main objection was a worry that the North could enact laws that prevented the south from putting down slave rebellions.
Don’t want your militia disarmed? Then let’s put in an amendment that says we can’t disarm the militia. Why on earth would you expect the amendment to spell out why the militia was needed?
The basics he lays out are pretty clear. Madison proposed the bill of rights - including the second amendment - as an electoral promise given because of the issues Mason and Henry raised; the specific issue was that the federal government controlled the militia and meant the government could legally disarm them; and render them ineffective; and as the North outnumbered the south - and detested slavery (as Henry pointed out), the North could neglect the south’s militia - which were their primary means to put down slave rebellions. Thus, on a practical level - yeah - the main objection was a worry that the North could enact laws that prevented the south from putting down slave rebellions.
Don’t want your militia disarmed? Then let’s put in an amendment that says we can’t disarm the militia. Why on earth would you expect the amendment to spell out why the militia was needed?
This next statement just demonstrates the sheer ignorance of the intent and purpose (i.e. red herring fallacy) of the second amendment on Mystal's part:
"The Founders didn't know that guns would be used in over half of the nation's suicides."
What do suicides have to do with the price of Tea in China! Nothing!
You are quote mining - taking the authors quote out of context:
"The Founders didn't know that guns would be used in over half of the nation's suicides. We know. The founders didn’t know that guns would be used in over half domestic partner homicides. We know. If the second amendment has evolved to incorporate the right to self defence, surely it’s evolved to allow us to make it harder for people to kill themselves or their spouses”
The author is explaining that the original intent of the amendment has evolved; and if this is the case, then why not also incorporate these other factors too. You’re clearly taking this quote out of that intended context - and what relevance to suicides and domestic abuse have? He goes onto explain it in part of the quote you chopped out.
Mystal once again goes down the Cry Wolf racism Syndrome path with the following ridiculous notion:
Appeal to the stone.
"Gun rights are not about self-defense. They literally never have been. Gun rights are about menacing, intimidating, and killing racial minorities, if necessary."Reading this it becomes painfully clear that #ElieMystal knows absolutely nothing about the #SecondAmendment. This position, clearly seen and written through a divisive and racial prism is so patently absurd that I am not going to dignify it with my own written response. Rather, I will just cite evidence that conclusively disproves Mystal's victimhood mentality version of the intent of self-defense and the Second Amendment.
Out of the three links the first and third mostly agree with the author, that the original explicit intent was assumed to be something else up until recently - it’s not clear how any of them rebut the central premise of the writer that this argument is completely new since the 1970s; nor do they challenge the fundamental background and implied purpose of it. Indeed - two of the sources are basically making the point he’s rebutting.
So in summary - you missed out and failed to mention the authors key points - you’ve repeatedly taken his quotes out of essential context to attack them. And you’ve spent your time ridiculing a selection of individual quotes as ridiculous.
Created:
-->
@thett3
Two good examples there - theweakeredge; and public-choice. Both pretty much what I was asking for.
TheWeakerEdge, arguing that there’s reason to believe there is some level of skew in the crime data; and negative implications of over policing: he seems to be mixing the two up; together - as well as dropping in various issues of social attribution every so often. Public-choice, was explicitly pointing out that the crime data being used is unreliable and can’t be used to justify these sorts of opinions. I’m not entirely sure whether they’re on the left, nor whether they’re disagreeing with the broader crime trends the data shows - or simply saying that the data can’t be used to show any the crime trends. I could read it both ways, but the nuance isn’t unreasonable. I liked that post as a result, because the point is excellent, not necessarily that I agree with the specifics of everything he implies. But it’s a good point, that’s been largely left ignored.
I think characterizing those two aspects as denying the data is fairly accurate - I could argue that there’s a little bit more nuance there than you may give them credit for - but accurate
The two aspects of the characterization I would dispute; is the obvious one of likes = everyone holds that specific view; as opposed to any one of a number of things - for example had I seen some of the the points on rural policing, the issues of over policing, and aspects of bias in the police - as they’re good points; sometimes I like because there’s pushback on a particular flavour of a perspective. There’s a lot of nuance, and drawing that sort of silly conclusion is an incredible stretch as a result.
Likewise - liberals thinking whites are more violent - working in my phone only I can read the questions, not the actual csv data - but I can believe the overall spread of whites more violence than blacks mentioned in the tweet.
Your characterization of what that number really means - however - is again silly. Poll responses are specifically dependent on the interpretation of the question: and for this example; there’s so much baggage baked into the interpretation assuming many, or enough liberals took it in the way you’re implying they did is not worth consideration:
For example: as a snap question; that answer could be reflective of who you feel more threatened by, of who is felt to pose a bigger general danger of violence. It’s influenced also by whether one group seems to be becoming more violent or belligerent.
I could, for example, very easily rank whites more violent than blacks right now - not because I materially disagree with the crime rates - or even that I am judging in reference to crime rates at all; but as part of the general political climate. That answer would not be necessarily be inaccurate in that context.
This poll could be a reasonable indicator that liberals are perceiving a growing threat from whites than blacks - it could also be an indicator of the violence they feel is most significant, or most significant to them - or even most aware of personally - but to suggest it’s some sort of definitive indicator of liberals thinking, say, the inner city is as safe as the suburbs - or that it’s a specific measure of how liberals view the racial violent crime rate - not so much. The question is generalized enough that it’s hard to draw that sort of concrete conclusion from it.
This is why polls - or likes for that matter - are terrible. And that’s pretty much the reason I asked for specific examples of people; it’s pretty unambiguous.
TheWeakerEdge, arguing that there’s reason to believe there is some level of skew in the crime data; and negative implications of over policing: he seems to be mixing the two up; together - as well as dropping in various issues of social attribution every so often. Public-choice, was explicitly pointing out that the crime data being used is unreliable and can’t be used to justify these sorts of opinions. I’m not entirely sure whether they’re on the left, nor whether they’re disagreeing with the broader crime trends the data shows - or simply saying that the data can’t be used to show any the crime trends. I could read it both ways, but the nuance isn’t unreasonable. I liked that post as a result, because the point is excellent, not necessarily that I agree with the specifics of everything he implies. But it’s a good point, that’s been largely left ignored.
I think characterizing those two aspects as denying the data is fairly accurate - I could argue that there’s a little bit more nuance there than you may give them credit for - but accurate
The two aspects of the characterization I would dispute; is the obvious one of likes = everyone holds that specific view; as opposed to any one of a number of things - for example had I seen some of the the points on rural policing, the issues of over policing, and aspects of bias in the police - as they’re good points; sometimes I like because there’s pushback on a particular flavour of a perspective. There’s a lot of nuance, and drawing that sort of silly conclusion is an incredible stretch as a result.
Likewise - liberals thinking whites are more violent - working in my phone only I can read the questions, not the actual csv data - but I can believe the overall spread of whites more violence than blacks mentioned in the tweet.
Your characterization of what that number really means - however - is again silly. Poll responses are specifically dependent on the interpretation of the question: and for this example; there’s so much baggage baked into the interpretation assuming many, or enough liberals took it in the way you’re implying they did is not worth consideration:
For example: as a snap question; that answer could be reflective of who you feel more threatened by, of who is felt to pose a bigger general danger of violence. It’s influenced also by whether one group seems to be becoming more violent or belligerent.
I could, for example, very easily rank whites more violent than blacks right now - not because I materially disagree with the crime rates - or even that I am judging in reference to crime rates at all; but as part of the general political climate. That answer would not be necessarily be inaccurate in that context.
This poll could be a reasonable indicator that liberals are perceiving a growing threat from whites than blacks - it could also be an indicator of the violence they feel is most significant, or most significant to them - or even most aware of personally - but to suggest it’s some sort of definitive indicator of liberals thinking, say, the inner city is as safe as the suburbs - or that it’s a specific measure of how liberals view the racial violent crime rate - not so much. The question is generalized enough that it’s hard to draw that sort of concrete conclusion from it.
This is why polls - or likes for that matter - are terrible. And that’s pretty much the reason I asked for specific examples of people; it’s pretty unambiguous.
Created:
-->
@thett3
Apologies - one of the kids needed a couple of days in hospital - this week I learnt gastro can trigger cluster seizures in toddlers…. But all good now.
The gist of these arguments so far appears to be that it’s super unfair to ask someone to justify their characterization. That somehow it’s unfair or unreasonable for me to ask for some examples of people holding the belief apparently “everyone holds” because it’s clearly and obviously true and unfair to ask you to provide examples.
Imagine this was something like, say, climate change denial, or that the election was fraudulent - or even that Hillary Clinton killed a bunch of people. You could for sure start arguing the level of support for those beliefs - but it’s pretty clear I could spend all week posting links of people holding those specific beliefs on all of those examples with nearly no effort. If all I had, was to point at two members of this forum - and a poll that doesn’t show anything close to as the specific thing in question (more on that later), you’d likely question the support for my conclusion that a bit.
There’s obvious differences there, certainly, and I’m not saying that they’re the same, but the idea that this is a fairly general belief on the left, and yet - almost impossible to find anyone who seems to believe it; kinda bellies the actual position.
The data itself isn’t the issue - As I suggested, there maybe cracks in much of it, and you can argue it’s accuracy: and you can argue about the impacts of, say, over-policing; and I’m pretty sure you can find many people who mix those issues up together.
The broader issue with them is not the stats themselves, which is why you find so few people actually denying the data - but primarily with how people talk about them:
Historically, law and order and crime have been used as the pretext for a whole ton of racist policies - both explicitly racist and functionally racist: and with one of the prevailing and pervasive stereotypes of black people in some shape or form being brutes and thugs since the 1800s ; have all in no small part helped in creating and perpetuating the pervading stereotype of the violent, dangerous black man; that has in part been used to make people more comfortable with some pretty nasty laws over the decades - democrat and republican included.
Given the history, there is no longer any slack, or any benefit of the doubt given to people - especially white people - who say things that perpetuate or play up to those historically problematic stereotypes - intentionally or not.
Thus when a white person angrily talks about the black crime rates, like TWS does - it sounds pretty racist.
When someone stamps their feet and complains that they are obviously, totally not racist and stating facts and it shouldn’t matter if it’s true - it doesn’t change that it still sounds pretty racist.
If someone goes onto a bunch of unapologetic rants about black crime rates and how black males have a crime problem, and fixated on solely listing and regurgitating every last negative statistic about black people they can find- any rational human beings know it’s going to sound racist.
The issue with people like Thomas Sowel, is not as much Thomas Sowel himself: but the way he, and literally any other black speaker, is put on a pedestal and wheeled out during arguments in a very “some of my best friends are black” type of way; to lend some element of credibility to their arguments because you know it otherwise sounds racist coming from a white person.
That’s where the real contention is; if there is discomfort about the facts it’s far less about whether the facts are correct, but discomfort about how to frame things without sounding like we’re deliberately trying to stereotype, or play up a stereotype of a race; given the historical harm those stereotypes have caused and, to an extent, continue to cause.
That’s the specific issue - it’s why you see way more focus on the left in the media of the racial disparities in rates of victimization as opposed to offender - because that is a key way to talk about the actual problem, and talk about solutions about how to make communities safer without playing up stereotypes.
If you keep the right keep feeding those same stereotypes - regardless of how true they think the data is, or how well you think other people should take it: you’re keep going to have people not talking to you about it, and making - frankly reasonable judgements about potential intent.
I mean - if you’re unwilling to couch language in the face of an innumerable number of decades of racism - you kinda deserve it.
The gist of these arguments so far appears to be that it’s super unfair to ask someone to justify their characterization. That somehow it’s unfair or unreasonable for me to ask for some examples of people holding the belief apparently “everyone holds” because it’s clearly and obviously true and unfair to ask you to provide examples.
Imagine this was something like, say, climate change denial, or that the election was fraudulent - or even that Hillary Clinton killed a bunch of people. You could for sure start arguing the level of support for those beliefs - but it’s pretty clear I could spend all week posting links of people holding those specific beliefs on all of those examples with nearly no effort. If all I had, was to point at two members of this forum - and a poll that doesn’t show anything close to as the specific thing in question (more on that later), you’d likely question the support for my conclusion that a bit.
There’s obvious differences there, certainly, and I’m not saying that they’re the same, but the idea that this is a fairly general belief on the left, and yet - almost impossible to find anyone who seems to believe it; kinda bellies the actual position.
The data itself isn’t the issue - As I suggested, there maybe cracks in much of it, and you can argue it’s accuracy: and you can argue about the impacts of, say, over-policing; and I’m pretty sure you can find many people who mix those issues up together.
The broader issue with them is not the stats themselves, which is why you find so few people actually denying the data - but primarily with how people talk about them:
Historically, law and order and crime have been used as the pretext for a whole ton of racist policies - both explicitly racist and functionally racist: and with one of the prevailing and pervasive stereotypes of black people in some shape or form being brutes and thugs since the 1800s ; have all in no small part helped in creating and perpetuating the pervading stereotype of the violent, dangerous black man; that has in part been used to make people more comfortable with some pretty nasty laws over the decades - democrat and republican included.
Given the history, there is no longer any slack, or any benefit of the doubt given to people - especially white people - who say things that perpetuate or play up to those historically problematic stereotypes - intentionally or not.
Thus when a white person angrily talks about the black crime rates, like TWS does - it sounds pretty racist.
When someone stamps their feet and complains that they are obviously, totally not racist and stating facts and it shouldn’t matter if it’s true - it doesn’t change that it still sounds pretty racist.
If someone goes onto a bunch of unapologetic rants about black crime rates and how black males have a crime problem, and fixated on solely listing and regurgitating every last negative statistic about black people they can find- any rational human beings know it’s going to sound racist.
The issue with people like Thomas Sowel, is not as much Thomas Sowel himself: but the way he, and literally any other black speaker, is put on a pedestal and wheeled out during arguments in a very “some of my best friends are black” type of way; to lend some element of credibility to their arguments because you know it otherwise sounds racist coming from a white person.
That’s where the real contention is; if there is discomfort about the facts it’s far less about whether the facts are correct, but discomfort about how to frame things without sounding like we’re deliberately trying to stereotype, or play up a stereotype of a race; given the historical harm those stereotypes have caused and, to an extent, continue to cause.
That’s the specific issue - it’s why you see way more focus on the left in the media of the racial disparities in rates of victimization as opposed to offender - because that is a key way to talk about the actual problem, and talk about solutions about how to make communities safer without playing up stereotypes.
If you keep the right keep feeding those same stereotypes - regardless of how true they think the data is, or how well you think other people should take it: you’re keep going to have people not talking to you about it, and making - frankly reasonable judgements about potential intent.
I mean - if you’re unwilling to couch language in the face of an innumerable number of decades of racism - you kinda deserve it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
compare and contrasta mother who kills her own child within the first 12 monthsa father who kill his own child within the first 12 months
Repeating the dishonest strawman #7 - As shown in post 171, 177, 179, 182, 187, 193. Which you ignored and keep ignoring.
That comparison is meaningless; as it is clearly and absolutely self evident from every single thing I have said in every single post that I have been talking about and have only ever been talking about mothers killing their children.
Your objection, talking about your claims of infanticide not being murder in the first 12 months in the sense of “a mother killing a child isn’t murder” or “killing a child” instead of “a mother killing her child” is somehow misrepresenting what you said - where every single last line of my argument singularly talks about mothers and their children, and infanticide - and nothing I argued EVER, at any point suggested or implied that you were suggesting mothers killing ANY child is not murder - or any non mother killing a child is not Murder - is so semantically absurd, and so dishonestly asinine it barely warrants a response.
It’s a straw man - nothing I have said in any of my arguments or posts can be interpreted, in good faith, to suggest you were arguing fathers or strangers could kill children, or mothers could kill children that were not theirs. This is bad faith argument. A strawman.
Like I said and you keep ignoring.
Created:
-->
@Avery
Your usage of "heavily biased" is disingenuous and is essentially Ad Hom. You're implying that the republican responses are illegitimate because they're republican. In the same way, I could just easily say that the Liberal input was also "heavily biased" because they're Liberal, but I don't do that because it's Ad Hom attempting to be legitimate criticism -- logically fallacious.Even if you were right (you're not), we could say that the heavy bias was evened out because both sides were "heavily biased".There's no world in which you are correct.
Firstly - do you understand what an Ad Hom is? Too many people throw our fallacies like buzzwords, without explaining how or why they apply - as is saying it makes it true: An ad hominem attack is where I make an attack on the person making an argument instead of addressing their argument. Can you please explain how either of those apply.
Now; if you look at the data: Republicans we’re +37 white black difference, way higher than any other listed groups +/-.That isn’t balanced out by liberals who were -6.
What this means is that the headline number is skewed because one individual group had an extreme response. The broader point of Americans thinking a>b; is in no small part because a group we suspected believed a>b believe a>b very strongly.
This is the only point I was making; it a statistical one.
Oh, so you are going to crazy conspiratorial levels to deny the poll results.Yes, everyone else is wrong but you. People are never right when they disagree with you. Everyone in the poll was drunk, confused, paid shills, hallucinating etc.
No - that would be an absurd misrepresentation. You largely ignored my point and just restated this silly argument:
Perceptions are perceptions they are sometimes true; often not. Are perceptions of how smart people are based on how they look accurate? are peoples perception of risk accurate? No.
You are asserting that the perception is accurate. That is assuming your preferred conclusion. We do not know the perception is accurate; it could be right - it could be very wrong.
You are falsely asserting that I am suggesting that perception is definitely wrong I am not. I am saying that it’s simply perception - and doesn’t show what’s real, only what people think is real - those two things often differ.
69% haven't experienced or witnessed sufficient racism from Blacks to conclude that most of them are racist. Believe it or not, Blacks aren't racist all the time. It's possible to interact with Black people and have them not be racist.
And how exactly do you know this? Is this in any of the polls, is this supported by any data? Or are you just pulling it out of your ass?
What about the slightly higher percentage talking about whites? On what basis are you concluding that that 70+% is absolutely right and haven't simply experienced white racism? Does that imply the 20+% of people who think whites are racists have experience that racism?
Perhaps that 31% had one or two bad experiences that coloured everything else they see?
We don’t know - the poll doesn’t show it; so without relying on your assumptions, you can’t really say anything.
What you’re doing is just pulling whatever assumptions that allow you to draw your conclusion. Nothing about this comes from the polls.
Rather, what the data is capturing is when people see enough racism to conclude that the racial group is racist. Blacks are winning in that category, hence why they've been awarded the 'most racist' award.
How do you know thats what it’s capturing? Is there a reason to beleive all - or enough -responds when asked “are Black Americans mostly racist” in a robocall are basing this on upon severity and quantity.
Why does that not apply to whites too?
Again - to suggest the poll says what you claim; you have to assume about the response that you can’t possibly know, nor have any reason whatsoever to believe is true.
We're not asking 'who is the most racist and how racist are they?'-, we're asking 'who is the most racist?'
You’re asking who is the most racist. If you don’t mean “how racist they are” then let’s be accurate to avoid any equivocation:
“Poll shows slightly more people think most black people are racist than think most white people are racist: does not show how racist either group is perceived”
The reason being is that “most racist” has multiple interpretation.
It could mean more blacks as a percentage of blacks are racist than are whites. IE: quantity (but the poll doesn’t ask any question by which this information can derived)
It could also means blacks are more racist - ie more strongly racist.
If you’re agreeing that the op means the forms rather than the latter - then you’re still wrong; but we’d better clear you the ambiguous language to avoid accidents. No?
What the poll collects is people's experiences of racism.
No it doesn’t - that’s pulled out of your ass again - it collects perceptions not experiences
There are indeed polls about experiences of racism - all the ones I’ve seen show whites having a far smaller experience of racism than any other race.
Blacks are being voted as the most racist, so they're the most racist. We don't need the precise level of their racism to determine that fact.Hence, the two questions are close enough to measure the same thing: who is more racist?
So the above posts amount to:
Of course I don’t mean more racist.Of course I don’t mean more racist.Of course I don’t mean more racist.Of course I mean more racist.
What you did here: is go through my post and repeatedly agree - that these polls don’t show that blacks are more racist than whites.
Then you assert that it actually does show black are more racist than whites.
For literally no reason.
Wrong.I said they're "close enough", not the same thing.You're failing to even get direct quotes correct.
Direct quotes normally have quotations “” - if I’m not quoting you, don’t say it’s a quote.
I’m happy to amend my quote:
I’m bang on - actually: this post is just you asserting they actually pretty much mean the same thing - they really don’t at all (see above)
The poll in no way shape or form makes any comment on whether blacks are more racist, it’s polling people on whether they think 51% or more of blacks, whites and Hispanic’s are racist - how racist doesn’t figure in, how much above that 51% isn’t included - no questions coming close to getting that information was asked.
The only way you can assume that’s what the poll meant, or even came close to meaning is if make things up about it - like you have above.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
You clearly do not understand how polls work.
You can claim all you want I "do not understand how polls work," but the burden of proof is upon you to prove it. Something you have consistently failed in achieving across all threads where you've attempted to engage me in.
To refute this statement, though, you can look at the questions asked:
1* Are most white Americans racist?
2* Are most black Americans racist?
3* Are most Hispanic Americans racist?
4* Have you ever been accused of being a racist?
5* Does the term racism refer to any discrimination by people of one race against another or does racism refer only to discrimination by white people against minorities?
6* How would you rate race relations in America today - excellent, good, fair or poor?
7* Are race relations in America today getting better or worse?
8* Is it possible for people of different races in America to have an open and honest discussion about racial issues?
9* In political terms, do you consider yourself very conservative, somewhat conservative, moderate, somewhat liberal, or very liberal?
Now my understanding of these questions are that:
- they’re asking peoples perceptions - there’s nothing that tests actual racism (such as specifically racist attitudes)
- none of the questions touch upon HOW racist a group is.
So I may not know much about polling; but given those two things you can’t say that one group is more racist - that information is not determined from the poll.
Right?
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
You can claim all you want I am making "shit up," but the burden of proof is upon you to prove it
1. There’s only a single poll you cited, and 1 claim from a South African institute.
2. The poll doesn’t show that blacks are more racist than whites - only that more people thought most blacks were racist than thought most whites were racist.
3. If most people felt that only a minority of whites were racist - but very racist/whites supremacist, but that a majority of blacks were a bit racist - think badly of white people - that could match the poll, but not match the conclusion you present.
Created:
-->
@Avery
You dropped your argument suggesting that the poll was "heavily biased" due to "republican responses". I don't blame you, though, because it was a trash argument.
But it is - republicans hit a high of 49%; which brings the rest of sample up.
Unless you're arguing that everyone's perceptions were wrong or that everyone was lying (conspiracies that even Alex Jones wouldn't push), the results do show Blacks are the most racist in America.
Peoples perceptions about almost everything are wrong all the time. Without data confirming whether perceptions are accurate in this case - it doesn’t show What’s true - only what people think is true.
Worse: who’s perceptions are right? The 31% who say blacks are mostly racist - or the 69% who say no - they can’t both be right
What you’re sound is simply assuming your preferred conclusion.
Both questions are asking how racist certain races are. Most frequently, people are saying most Black people are racist. They're close enough to the same question that it doesn't make a meaningful difference.
No they’re not. They’re not even close.
Are most blacks racist would be asking whether the perception of the respondent is that a majority of blacks are racist. Not how much, or how strongly - just want that it they are.
What does that mean - does that mean hate whites and feel they’re superior - or black supremacy - no: it could mean something much lower.
Likewise: If 75% of whites were fine - and 25% we’re hardcore kkk white supremacists; but 51% of blacks hold some animosity to whites - if perception mapped reality - 100% would say blacks are mostly racist, and 0% would say whites are mostly racist - so there’s little real use for the measurement.
You're right about the number of polls, but you're dead-wrong about what the poll actually said. It's still functionally measuring the level of racism, and Blacks are the most racist. That's not "completely misrepresented" to any reasonable person.The OP has given strong evidence to show that Blacks are the most racist group in America.
I’m bang on - actually: this post is just you asserting they actually mean the same thing - they really don’t (see above)
Created:
-->
@cristo71
I have not assumed that; you are reading things I have not written or even thought to myself. What I am saying is that for BLM’s stated goal— less police— to be implemented, they must ignore inconvenient facts and cause and effect.
Possibly - I can imagine there’s a wealth of data and studies about approaches to community policing they maybe ignoring; but must it ignore inconvenient facts about crime rates, crime statistics and the current level of crime in black communities? No.
You’re assuming that the only way you can support defunding the police is if you ignore crime data - but that’s not true: if someone thinks that the current police force is ineffective in reducing crime in their community, and that better approaches that takes funding away from the police, and uses it for specific health and social programs that deal with route causes of many of the issues; and remove much of the police-population antagonism, militarized police presence and structure that is unnecessary for serving the community: that’s supporting defunding the police - while being fully aware of the need for public safety and crime rates. That’s mostly what defunding the police entails.
That’s the issue i’m taking with your argument, the suggestion that you necessarily can’t be for defunding the police unless you ignore crime data - because that constructs unreasonable assumptions about the motivations - what people are trying to so by defunding the police.
That’s the issue i’m taking with your argument, the suggestion that you necessarily can’t be for defunding the police unless you ignore crime data - because that constructs unreasonable assumptions about the motivations - what people are trying to so by defunding the police.
Me: “Enjoying a spaghetti dinner essentially involves getting marinara spots on your shirt.”
You: “There are various motivations to enjoy eating spaghetti other than to get sauce on one’s shirt. Simply assuming the single motivation to get sauce on one’s shirt is known as ‘begging the question.’
That’s not a good analogy: as this one doesn’t have an assumption baked in to the premise.
Let’s try a climate change one:
“The green party obviously deny climate change because they want to close nuclear power stations.
This one has the assumption. Green party is BLM, climate change is the crime stats, nuclear power.
The conclusion is that the Green Party deny climate change; but if you examine the argument - what is baked into the statement is the implicit assumption that closing nuclear power stations implies climate change denial. If there was another reason for wanting to shut nuclear power stations that didn’t involve denial - the statement would not follow. Because you’re not establishing that closing power station must necessarily suggest climate change denial; it’s an assumption you make that forces your conclusion - begging the question.
Let’s try a climate change one:
“The green party obviously deny climate change because they want to close nuclear power stations.
This one has the assumption. Green party is BLM, climate change is the crime stats, nuclear power.
The conclusion is that the Green Party deny climate change; but if you examine the argument - what is baked into the statement is the implicit assumption that closing nuclear power stations implies climate change denial. If there was another reason for wanting to shut nuclear power stations that didn’t involve denial - the statement would not follow. Because you’re not establishing that closing power station must necessarily suggest climate change denial; it’s an assumption you make that forces your conclusion - begging the question.
Created:
-->
@Avery
Liberals voted in this poll, too, so they had an opportunity to say other races were most racist. Even 31% of Blacks themselves thought that Blacks were most racist (only 24% thought Whites were the most racist).Anyway, it's not definitive proof, but it's certainly a piece of evidence to help make the case that Blacks are the most racist in America.
But it didn’t show that.
It showed what peoples perceptions where - not whether there was actual racism in this group; and it didn’t show which Americans thought were the MOST racist, but asked whether “most” of a given a race was racist - and more answered yes for blacks than whites.
So the OP misrepresented the number of polls and completely misrepresented what the poll actually said.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
Not to get too far off on a tangent, but I think climate data is misinterpreted, minimized, decontextualized, etc. routinely by pundits… so the denial is there. Again, it just isn’t the outright, blatant, flat earth style denial that you seek with this crime data.
And wouldn’t be the outright flat earth style denial the OP suggested… You’re basically agreeing with me, that the type of denial the OP suggests doesn’t really exist
Not sure what you’re saying here. If you’re saying that it is a fallacy to cut the police over low crime if the real reason for the low crime is the current size of the police force, then I agree… yet I don’t see how this counters what I am saying.
I’m saying that there are a whole number of reasons for which “defunding the police” could be the suggested approach - that does need to deny facts; you have assumed out of whole clothe that the motivation is because BLM assume that there is low crime.
Or in other words your arguments requires you to assume BLM is denying the numbers - eg: your argument assumes it’s own conclusion.
Where’s the data showing that police are a net hindrance on decreasing crime? If you are posing this scenario as a hypothetical (“if”), then it is a meaningless one as it assumes an implausible premise regarding the police and crime rates.
You appear to be thinking I’m determining the accuracy. I am suggesting an alternative motivation that doesn’t assume BLM are ignoring data. It may assume something else: that BLM believe that police as they are currently formed are a net hinderance to the crime rate in their neighbourhood. That doesn’t appear any more implausible assumption about what they believe than yours. At best you believe they’re denying one set of data, and this example the deny another - not wholly unreasonable.
The main issue is, unless you can plausibly reason why the only reasonable conclusion for BLM to defund the police is denial - this is mere question begging.
I never said that defunding the police is “predicated on denying crime stats.” What I am saying is that cutting already strained police ranks— for whatever reason OTHER than the current size of police = a net increase in crime (!)— is essentially to deny/ignore/avoid crime statistics
I suggested - and I think fairly - that you’re argument assumes that if BLM did not deny it the crime stats - they wouldn’t call for defunding the police - because you’re using the call to defund the police as evidence of denial. If that’s not the case, then you contradict your own conclusion. Otherwise, it’s fair to characterize it as defunding the police being predicated on denial of stats. Not wholly predicated; but predicated to the degree that it wouldn’t happen without it.
Created:
-->
@Avery
When are you going to address that poll? Or are you agreeing that the poll showed Black Americans are more racist than White Americans?
(> ‘ ‘ )>
Also the single poll doesn’t show black Americans are more racist; only that more Americans (heavily biased by republican responses) feel that most blacks are racist Than [think most] whites.
I added a couple of words in case of any ambiguity.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
If you want someone to link you to the article “Violent Crime Statistics Broken Down By Race Are False,” you are correct: there is no such declaration— just as you won’t find someone denying that the climate is changing (ie “I don’t deny the climate is changing; it has been, is, and always will be changing…”). The level of vocal denial you need to see to be satisfied you might be incorrect is implausibly high.
This is a perfect example, right here: Take climate change denial.
If I started citing articles showing the world was warming, that carbon dioxide was rising, and height measurements from tidal gauges and then claimed that the right denies this evidence - that would be a straw man.
Finding someone who denies the climate is changing would be almost impossible because no one really denies the climate is changing. This is really my point. The issue was never about the climate data, but other areas or aspects - and simple regurgitating temperature statistics doesn’t cut to the actual disagreement.
BLM essentially denies the crime stats by starting the “defund the police” movement. To lessen police presence is to deny that crime is a problem, by deeds if not by exact words.
That the only reason why someone would lesson police presence would be if crime was low: is assuming your own conclusion.
If, for example, BLM wanted to defund the police because they’re hindering more than they’re helping with that crime rate, and that they want to approach the problem differently - that still allows them to support defunding the police without ignoring the data.
There’s all manner of motivations that are not predicated on such denial; and simply assuming the motivation that implies denial out of all the possibilities is called “begging the question”.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
The BLM movement’s central narrative— that law enforcement poses the greatest threat to black lives— essentially denies the violent crime stats in black communities.
Is that really their central narrative? or is that what people pretend their central narrative is so that their objections or issues can be dismissed?
One can believe that the state is oppressing black people, and that police and state violence is a critical issue for black communities - whilst not denying the underlying crime statistics. The same way you can have organizations that promote awareness of breast cancer - without necessarily thinking that breast cancer is the biggest single health issue people face.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
The needing of context is stupid and actually gets in the way of analyzing the facts.
The need for understanding tone, context and language is critical in pretty much any human interaction where meaning is conveyed.
That you personally think needing context is stupid does not stop the rugby players taking issue with what you said.
Likewise, if the context of the discussion is the cold hard analysis of facts - then you’ll probably find a much more forgiving audience than at, say. a communal water cooler where people are talking about better call Saul ; and you walk up and state that blacks commit more crime by proportion unsolicited.
I also take issue with you thinking body language and tone matter, which is why in real life I try to remove all body language and tone in communication, so people can just solely rely on the dry facts presented. Nobody should be looking at tone or body language at all.
What you feel should be the case is largely irrelevant to what is the case; humans use tone, body language, and language used to interpret meaning and gauge intent. That’s how we work.
It seems with this reply that your issue is not about the left ignoring data - but that you take issue with how human interaction typically works.
Created:
-->
@Shila
A blind persons view of the sun will always be subjective because he cannot verify it.Even accepting the view of someone who can see will also be subjective because he cannot verify that either.That is no different than someone who can see but relies on a blind persons view of the sun. It too is subjective.That is why the Bible describes Christian’s as the blind leading the blind.Luke 6:39 He also told them this parable: “Can the blind lead the blind? Will they not both fall into a pit?
Brightness would be visible photons per square meter.
A blind person can agree how bright the sun is by virtue of being able to agree on the number of photons per square meter.
Being able to see the sun is not a requirement.
Now ‘very bright’ could be an arbitrarily decided value upon or the blind person would have to take someone’s word for it that it’s ‘very bright’ based on some else’s vision tolerance.
Either way ‘very bright’ is a thing of human construction, and not something objective that can be determined and agreed independently.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
I I agree with most of what you said, but you stated not a single person on the left believes what he said they do.
I’m sure there are some; perhaps not many. It’s certainly not any sort of major theme or trend on the broader left.
when intuitively we know that if you proclaimed these facts in public or at work without adding anything, just a flat unbiased statement of these facts, you'd be fired for racism.That to me sounds like, not only are the people firing you, in denial about the stated facts, but also think it's racist to think these facts derived from DOJ stats are real.If you only heard somebody state those facts with no context, what would be the first thoughts that pop into your mind. I am on the far right ideologically, and I am willing to say I am biased enough that anyone stating the fact with no context would be seen as racist to me.If this is the case than we have to admit a lot of people are uncomfortable with these facts.
What you’re talking about isn’t denial of the facts, or even any inherent discomfort about the facts per-se (as in discomfort that the facts are as they).
The issue is much more related to the fact that the nature of the topic, and the language you can use to express it makes it difficult to express the fact without implying value or without implying some level stereotype. If you avoid doing that - then there would be much less of an issue.
If you can express the same thing in a different way and no one is bothered - then it’s not the facts being cited that’s the issue.
As I said in my first reply; the behaviour, tone, and statements all play a part in determining what another human says; when talking about negative things that imply negative social value about a group of people; making no effort to clarify that you’re not implying negative social value to the group - people are going to take it in that way: this isn’t a left thing or a racism thing; this a pretty much anyone and anything thing.
I mean; go up to a team of rugby players and state - A flat unbiased statement of truth - with anything added - that statistically speaking, one in every ten men is homosexual. They may be likely to take issue with it, not because they deny the existence of prevalence of gay people - but how you saying it came across in context.
Created:
Functionally speaking, what is morality?
It’s a collection of emotional responses we have to ours and others actions and interactions.
We feel guilty at things we do, we feel angry at others when they do something wrong.
Those feelings differ from person to person, culture to culture, and time period to time period. Attitudes change and evolve.
In that respect, functional morality is by definition subjective.
On top of this functional morality - we have created ethical frameworks which attempt to seek to quantify our emotional responses in a way, in order to provide a logical consistent underpinning for moral decisions.
None of the work very well - considering ethical thought experiments such as the trolly problem - because we always end up being faced with conditions where an ethical answer “feels” immoral - but we can’t really explain why.
This appears to be because while our morality is somewhat guided by general principles - it is inherently subjective.
One of the critical issues with morality, however, is that good and bad are arbitrary and subjective.
We intrinsically feel that Murder is immoral; our ethical considerations suggest murder is immoral as we feel our life has value, and we should treat others as if they are like us and thus value value.
I can only tell you that we all mostly agree that our lives have value - I can’t tell you whether we’re actually correct. No one can.
God doesn’t actually fix this. I still can’t tell whether human life has value or not, all your doing is saying that it does, because an unquestionable authority says it does.
That doesn’t change or fix anything about what morality is; it just moves the problem on to a place you don’t have to think about it; and declare it cannot be questioned.
For example : if God is responsible for declaring what is moral and what isn’t - morality still isn’t objective: it’s a collection of arbitrary edicts from a diety - those edicts could potentially be anything he chooses.
Which leads back to exactly the same problem - we don’t know why human life has value, we just agree that it does. All God serves to achieve is to add one more person that agrees with your moral perspective.
Even that doesn’t really even work - since that not even all Christian’s of all age cannot agree on God thinks is moral or not; so one can add ambiguous as well as arbitrary to Gods morality.
The best way to think about objective vs subjective - is the difference between how bright the sun is, vs whether the sun is very bright.
The first you only have to agree on a standard of measurement so that you’re both talking about the same things: visible light per square cm or meter - the quantity measured can’t be disputed.
The latter relies on an arbitrary standard that can’t be agreed without taking someone word for it.
A blind person can agree on how bright the sun is - but not whether the sun is “very bright” unless they simply agree with out basis someone else’s opinion on what constitutes very bright.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Are you really asking dude for a citation on the fact he said idiots exist that believe stupid things?I think you can give him that point. I'm sure if he looked hard enough he would eventually be able to cite some idiot who believes exactly what he said some people believe.Do you really want him to search 8 hours for that citation so you can merely respond "well that guy is an idiot and doesn't represent the opinion of any thinking person".I don't know why people get hung up on these types of points.
It’s a pretty central point his blog post, other posts, and as he suggests here that “the left” rejects this specific data. If he has to spend 8 hours searching, and is only able to find some idiot no one has heard of - that would seem to refute the claim. No?
If he can’t show “the left” is rejecting this data - he shouldn’t be making the claim. Right?
I agree, I’m sure one can find an idiot who believes all sorts of nonsense on a particular piece if data on the right - but I couldn’t use that to draw broad political conclusion about the right and say ”the right believes”
Now; one could presume that the left accepts the data, but rejects various “conservative” conclusions being drawn from it on cause, blame or approach - and ostracize more conservative viewpoints when they draw blame or oppose popular policy or perspectives on race - but that’s not the same thing at all.
The OP Suggesting the data is the true point of contention, or that people are ostracized for bringing up the data - but it’s not clear the data was never at issue. And this is my point - if the left doesn’t actually reject the data - then the purpose of this entire post is a strawman; that’s not a minor triviality as you and others appear to suggest
Created:
-->
@Avery
I don't understand why you're trying to start an argument about petty, trivial gripes that have nothing to do with the OP's main content, and I don't care to understand. I've got better things to do with my time than start a meta-discussion about the OP.The fact is that you agree with the OP.There's no debate to be had with you on the OP's topic.That's the end of our discussion in this thread.
What you call “petty trivial grips that have nothing to do with the OPs main content” (The left objecting to data) are also the things you just said were the whole reason the OP made the post in the first place, and what the OP said was the important point he was trying to draw.
Which is it? You can’t have it both ways?
I’m questioning the very reason you give for why this post was necessary, and reasons that the OP gave that he was trying to highlight.
Are you now suggesting I shouldn’t start an argument on the very thing you both suggested the argument is for?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
If there was one, to which I am not aware, I would take issue with it. That has nothing to do with the point I made.
Someone was arrested for an assassination attempt (chickened out) on Kavanaugh. Was on most news channels, was decried from most people I saw.
Rather than, you know “it was a set up” or “the FBI made him do it” or “it was really anti-fa” or “he’s a political prisoner”
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
This is someone complaining about the left. There is no example of someone on the left denying crime data in here
This is an opinion piece by a conservative. He is just opining about the left - there is no specific example he cites of anyone on the left denying crime data
Same guy - complaining about liberals. No example of anyone on the left denying crime data.
Complaining about media coverage. No example of anyone denying the data.
Same conservative talk radio guy - again no examples of anyone denying the data - just opining.
Again - just claims that BLM is too focused on police - no specific examples of anyone denying the numbers.
So you keep saying that the left denies the crime numbers; and after pressuring you to show examples - the first 6: one would assume the six best and most substantial examples you can come up with…. Have no examples of the left denying the crime numbers…
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
The left DOES deny the data.I have cited source after source where even black people who have said EXACTLY what I have said have been ostracized for stating the truth. A truth that they (the left, democrats) unequivocally deny, blaming all white people for their failures in life.
Can you share one?
Created:
-->
@Avery
Some extremist left-wing people I've met irl or debated on other websites.
Have a link, or a example?
Well, Lebronski seemed to want to contest it, but that was minutia grinding more than outright denial.But yeah, no one in this thread seems to be objecting to any significant degree.
So no one here? Not even Lebronski?
There really is no "and" to this thread.It was about proving the OP. That's it. If you want to take the fact that a small % of black men are the most violent in America, and use it to make a further argument (or "and" as you keep saying), make another thread and do it there. Stop trying to derail the thread into something that it's not. You've already agreed to the OP -- that's it.
So let me get this straight.
Ignoring that speaking for the OP (obviously as a prescient mind reader) - and the OP has contradicted you by saying that there is actually an and above (best read what the guy says before speaking for him a FYI)
You’re telling me that the purpose of this post was solely and only to prove the data is correct - because it is so strenuously denied by idiots on the left.
However no one here denies the data, you can’t cite any examples of anyone denying the data, and you can’t name anyone that’s denied the data?
And yet you’re telling me (or at least the OP is telling) that “the left” denies the data?
Created:
-->
@Avery
Some idiots like to argue that a small group of black men aren't the most violent people in America.
Who?
that's it white men or white people in general.
Who has said that? In the context of violent crime Data - I mean.
Other idiots like to say it's not true because it's "racist" or "white supremacist".
Who says that?
So, this thread combats idiocy with compelling data.But since you already agree that this small group of black men are the most violent in America, there's no argument to be had with you.
As I said - I don’t really see many people materially objecting to the data; I see many people objecting to inferences that are drawn from the data - but not the data itself.
Perhaps you’re confusing the two?
Hence why I asked…
And?
The and is important; and with this type of post, there is always an and.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
These all refer to the same one poll.
this is from South Africa.
Also the single poll doesn’t show black Americans are more racist; only that more Americans (heavily biased by republican responses) feel that most blacks are racist Than whites.
The title should more appropriately read:
Single Poll I found shows Americans think black Americans are MORE racist than whites; also some article from South Africa
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405
That's their forte, to constantly misquote, misinterpret, and mischaracterize what another says. They have done it to me too, on more than one thread.
By all means please give an example - any example - of me mischaracterizing what you’ve said.
I think you’re just making this up.
Created:
-->
@Avery
There we go. You agree with the thread's OP.That's all you had to say.
And?
What’s the point?
If you state trees are green and the demand everyone agrees with you - what’s your point?
I don’t think anyone materially disagrees with anything - so it seems puzzling you are surprised that people agree with the data - as if it’s some sort of gotcha.
Unless of course, it’s some kind of gotcha.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Yes, they are and have been...."really!"
He asserts without argument.
Ah, so you ADMIT that I am right! So, your rant and ravings were purely an exercise in obnoxious futility then.
I don't think there is anyone on this forum - that I am aware of - that has ever materially objected to the raw statistics. I certainly haven’t it.
It’s always been the “and”, it’s the intellectual baggage on the point: what is your inference from this data, what are you using it to say - how is the data relevant to a point of contention? What is that point of contention?
As in your other thread - you made a whole ton of additional inferences that were intellectually bankrupt and you couldn’t defend; but presented the proposition almost as if agreeing the data validated the inferences - it doesn’t; and I’m still waiting for your responses in that thread, btw.
Strawman.
How? Why? Are you going to explain?
It’s not, btw - a straw man is when I misrepresent your position, and attack the misrepresentation.
I’m asking what your position is, and not actually attacking anything.
Please can you take a moment to familiarize yourself with what logical fallacies are how they apply before blurting them out.
The "and" is the truth of it all. Truth that the left denies. A point made poignantly clear in my blog and my posts herein.
My favourite part of this is you called it a straw man when I suggest you have an “and” tacked on… then tell me that there is indeed an and tacked on.
But the left doesn’t really deny it. The additional intellectual baggage many people tack on to it - that is absolutely denied and argues at length, but the stats aren’t really denied
I asked you before if you have an example of someone prominent on the left that materially questions the data? Let’s start easy - any politicians or left wing journalists?
And nowhere within the blog or this thread has anyone concluded "guilt," as the intelligent reader understands the arrest and identification factors have absolutely nothing to do with actual conviction rates.
Huh?
I’m simply suggesting that number of people of a given characteristic arrested, or identified as the criminal - is only indicative of how often people with that characteristic commit crimes if there is no bias in arrests or identification. I’m not even suggesting the bias is big.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405
LOL!!! The sheer level of your hypocrisy knows no bounds. LOL!!!
In what way? Please explain and cite a where you feel I’ve made a number of straw man, and haven’t respond.
If you’re considering your other threads - recall in these threads I provided detailed arguments which you were unable to respond to.
How about I cite the arguments I made to which you refuses to respond, and you cite the arguments you made to which I refused to respond? And we can stack them up together
Created:
-->
@Avery
These are all distractions from the topic.
They’re actually not really.
The topic is simple: a small % of black males are the most violent in the USA.
Sure. I mean, other than the phrasing - which is a little clunky.
When are you going to address that fact? When are you going to counter the data he provided? At the moment, you have no answer to these questions and have essentially conceded that the OP is correct.
I don’t think anyone really contests the data. There are aspects of uncertainty - some of the data is based on arrests, some of the data is victim identification based: both have implicit assumptions that arrests/conviction/identification=guilt; which aren’t necessarily true. But sure.
But what’s the point of it. There is a higher rate of crime in black males than white males, and?
The post and blog imply there is an and; What is the and?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
i've repeatedly pointed out where you've misquoted me
Repeating the dishonest strawman #6 - As shown in post 171, 177, 179, 182, 187. Which you ignored.
At no point in any of my arguments have I misrepresented anything you said to mean something you didn’t mean.
Created:
Posted in:
your failure to communicate with the person you are speaking to
On what basis do you feel it needs a fifth, what is wrong with the previous four that you feel necessitates need writing another argument after you’ve ignored the previous four?
What don’t you understand? What specifically in any of my last 5 arguments isn’t clear?
You can’t just ignore every single argument someone makes and then, when challenged say “you’re just not explaining it well enough”
At this point I think it’s fairly self evidence that you are unable to have any rational discussion.
As you haven’t bothered to contest anything I’ve said: I will take that as a clear and unambiguous sign that you’ve conceded the point.
Created:
Posted in:
ok, how would you rephrase this statement ?perhaps you could maybe make an attempt to summarize your key point
I’ve given you four individual versions, which you have ignored
On what basis do you feel it needs a fifth, what is wrong with the previous four that you feel necessitates need writing another argument after you’ve ignored the previous four?
You say that a mother killing a child is not murder.i never said that
Yes you did. Unless you are continuing to deliberately take what I’m saying out of its clear context - despite me unambiguously stating what that context was - and explaining why it was taken out of context.
Which would be repeating the same straw man for the fourth time - and is at this point now egregiously dishonest.
By all means, walk me through your logic here:We were both talking about infanticide, about the treatment of mothers who kill their children, whether it was murder, how the law for infanticide is interpreted, how the punishment for that law applies to those mothers deciding to murder their kids. You say that a mother killing a child is not murder.On what basis did you conclude, given that clear context, that talking about you suggesting that “killing a child is not murder” in reference to your specific claim about mothers - that I am suddenly and out of absolutely nowhere talking about any child murder by anyone? Especially given that neither before or since have I talked at any point mentioned or argued about anything other than mothers?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
in summary,i made a statementyou treated my statement as if it were a DEBATE RESOLUTIONsure, ok, fine
No - I took issue with a collection of things that you said.
you spun wild tangents
He asserts without argument
No. Everything I said was absolutely and specific relevant to what you said.
that concluded with your claim that you personally believei was trying to say "killing a child is not murder"instead of simply asking me, "are you suggesting that killing a child is not murder?"to which i would answer, "no, that is not what i am suggesting"it's more like, "when a mother kills her own child within the first 12 months after that child is born, it is often, but not always, treated as infanticide by the legal system (at least in canada) and as such, usually carries a penalty of less than one year in jail, which compares favorably in contrast to a mandatory life sentence for second degree murder"this rephrasing of my original statement, more accurately reflects my original intent and does not constitute any shift whatsoever from my original position
You said this before.
I told you this claim is a straw man in post #171
You ignored my response - repeated the claim
I told you again - this claim is a straw man in post #177
You ignored my response again.
I again told you your original statement was a straw man in post #179
You ignore my response and are repeating the claim again
For a fourth time, this is an absurd, outrageous straw man that completely and totally misrepresents my argument by taking them so far out their clear and unambiguous context that no reasonable could have possible interpreted my comments in this way.
By all means, walk me through your logic here:
We were both talking about infanticide, about the treatment of mothers who kill their children, whether it was murder, how the law for infanticide is interpreted, how the punishment for that law applies to those mothers deciding to murder their kids. You say that a mother killing a child is not murder.
On what basis did you conclude, given that clear context, that talking about you suggesting that “killing a child is not murder” in reference to your specific claim about mothers - that I am suddenly and out of absolutely nowhere talking about any child murder by anyone? Especially given that neither before or since have I talked at any point mentioned or argued about anything other than mothers?
You simply took my argument wildly out of context in order to pretend I’m claiming something that no rational human being could possibly think I’m claiming. This is a massive straw man.
Created: