Pence now showing his "closet racist" tendencies as well.

This is a colliery to the idiotic idea that if you are "color blind" to race you are a racist. The defenders of this pillorying Pence are complete morons brainwashed by the Left.
 
AProudLefty said:
It is okay but you'd have to explain why. Basically by saying that you don't believe in the narrative, that means they are lying about their experiences.
Click to expand...

TBH, I think most of them aren't lying, they're just mistaken. Black people aren't targeted by cops, but the media and schools teach them that they are.
 
AProudLefty said:
LOL. You have no idea what that means.

Anyway, if one doesn't believe in the BLM narrative, that means he believes that those black people are lying.
Click to expand...

Actually I do, and you having to use an ad hominem in response to my statement means it's likely you don't. A complex question is one where the answer is presupposed or given. The classic example is Do you still beat your wife? There is no right answer to that and no matter how you answer it looks awful for you.

When you state, as you did, "I guess the black people are lying about their experiences?" If the respondent says "No," then you circle back to your original argument and call the respondent racist. It the respondent says "Yes," then you attack them for their racist position on Blacks being liars.
That amounts to a complex question.

It is also a red herring. A red herring fallacy is one intended to misdirect and change the direction of the discussion off into something else or into irrelevance.

By using a complex question as a red herring, what you were trying to do was invoke a response that either discredited the respondent with an ad hominem or took the discussion off into an irrelevant dead end.

Thus, my response was accurate.

As to your second statement, that amounts to an ad hominem. You are now arguing either you agree with BLM or you are a racist. This amounts to a false dilemma in that you give the respondent no middle ground or other alternatives when there clearly are many. It might also be considered a No True Scotsman in that as a counter example, it leaves no room for alternatives.

Thus, your argument is invalid unless restated where alternatives can be discussed.
 
Last edited:
T. A. Gardner said:
Actually I do, and you having to use an ad hominem in response to my statement means it's likely you don't.
Click to expand...

What ad hominem?

A complex question is one where the answer is presupposed or given. The classic example is Do you still beat your wife? There is no right answer to that and no matter how you answer it looks awful for you.

When you state, as you did, "I guess the black people are lying about their experiences?" If the respondent says "No," then you circle back to your original argument and call the respondent racist. It the respondent says "Yes," then you attack them for their racist position on Blacks being liars.
That amounts to a complex question.
Click to expand...

If you noticed, SxS asked me if it was ok not to agree with the BLM narrative, I said yes. Then he explained his reasoning (see? That's how you response without going off rails with "fallacies"). And I said he had a good point.

Disagreeing with the BLM narrative does not mean you're racist.

It is also a red herring. A red herring fallacy is one intended to misdirect and change the direction of the discussion off into something else or into irrelevance.
Click to expand...

You're the one who misdirected.

By using a complex question as a red herring, what you were trying to do was invoke a response that either discredited the respondent with an ad hominem or took the discussion off into an irrelevant dead end.

Thus, my response was accurate.
Click to expand...

Nope. I wasn't trying to invoke anything. I was asking a simple question. If one does not believe in the BLM narrative, what does that mean?
 
AProudLefty said:
Good point. But we're not black so what do we know?
Click to expand...

Multiple statistical studies have put to rest most of the BLM narrative about cops targeting black people. When adjusting for the suspected crimes, cops don't kill black people any more often than white people in proportion to how often they interact with a given group.

The problem is that, because black people commit a disproportionately high amount of violent crime, many of their interactions with cops involve the suspicion of a violent crime. That tends to make cops more on-edge. And when you look at cases where cops kill someone, regardless of race, it usually involves a suspect of a violent crime.

The cases that make the news often involve black people that weren't suspects of a violent crime, because getting killed in a less serious context is more shocking. If it was commonplace, it wouldn't be newsworthy or shocking to the public.

Granted, BLM and other activists seem to want us to believe this happens all the time and that society is overtly racist. That's a perfect narrative for demanding anything and everything you want.
 
Woko Haram said:
Multiple statistical studies have put to rest most of the BLM narrative about cops targeting black people. When adjusting for the suspected crimes, cops don't kill black people any more often than white people in proportion to how often they interact with a given group.

The problem is that, because black people commit a disproportionately high amount of violent crime, many of their interactions with cops involve the suspicion of a violent crime. That tends to make cops more on-edge. And when you look at cases where cops kill someone, regardless of race, it usually involves a suspect of a violent crime.

The cases that make the news often involve black people that weren't suspects of a violent crime, because getting killed in a less serious context is more shocking. If it was commonplace, it wouldn't be newsworthy or shocking to the public.

Granted, BLM and other activists seem to want us to believe this happens all the time and that society is overtly racist. That's a perfect narrative for demanding anything and everything you want.
Click to expand...

Sensible response. I don't think cops are generally racist. But that leaves the rest of them. Rodney King for example.
 
AProudLefty said:
Sensible response. I don't think cops are generally racist. But that leaves the rest of them. Rodney King for example.
Click to expand...

To be fair, I'm not against holding cops more accountable. I just think we've lately started to shift things in a direction where cops can't legally defend themselves. The Rayshard Brooks shooting seems pretty understandable given his attempt to taser one of the cops, but Atlanta's government has given into the mob's demands. The media has unfortunately turned a significant portion of that population into mindless thugs.
 
AProudLefty said:
What ad hominem?
Click to expand...

An ad hominem attacks the opponent rather than their argument or position. You stated, "LOL. You have no idea what that means." That is an ad hominen.

If you noticed, SxS asked me if it was ok not to agree with the BLM narrative, I said yes. Then he explained his reasoning (see? That's how you response without going off rails with "fallacies"). And I said he had a good point.

Disagreeing with the BLM narrative does not mean you're racist.
Click to expand...

It was the way you phrased your response that made it a combination complex question fallacy and red herring. That has nothing to do with your intent. Since I am not a mind reader, I can only go with what's presented.

You're the one who misdirected.
Click to expand...

Another ad hominem. I pointed out the fallacy in the construction of your response, nothing more.

Nope. I wasn't trying to invoke anything. I was asking a simple question. If one does not believe in the BLM narrative, what does that mean?
Click to expand...

You asked a complex question. If one doesn't believe the BLM narrative there can be any number of reasons from the narrative being shot through with fallacies, to being too general, to being made up anecdote that isn't provable, to bad statistics, and many more reasons.
I have problems with the BLM narrative because it is hyper-political and supports an agenda rather than looking critically, and rationally at factual evidence. That makes it propaganda more than a persuasive argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top