Page 3 of 4 [ 49 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

feral botanist
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Jul 2016
Gender: Male
Posts: 881
Location: in the dry land

03 Jan 2017, 11:14 am

adifferentname wrote:

Pointing out your false inferences presented as strawmen is not a logical fallacy. You made multiple positive claims based on said inferences, absent any contextual evidence to support your interpretation, ergo the burden of proof is very much upon you. More pertinently, to claim superior knowledge of my motives than I myself make claim to is beyond arrogant.
Quote:

To which claims are you referring? The claims on racism? I provided some statistics and the original post about Nixon's aid.

Quote:
Regarding your claim of an ambiguity fallacy, kindly point out where I misrepresented the truth. You were clearly misled by your own failure to comprehend my meaning, exacerbated by your seeming desire to insert meaning where none was previously to be found.

You have adopted an extremely egocentric stance on a post that was directed towards the subject in general rather than towards you specifically. Much as I hate to p*ss in people's cornflakes, I regret to inform you that the world revolves around the sun.


Not sure how to deal with this? It seems detached from reality, aside from the part about the the world which now that I look at it, it is not correct. The earth orbits the sun and revolves on a central axis, so you didn't even get that correct.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

03 Jan 2017, 1:20 pm

I think that the intent behind the law(s) is arguable, but that the racially disparate effects of the policy are not.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


Campin_Cat
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2014
Age: 63
Gender: Female
Posts: 25,953
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.

03 Jan 2017, 1:46 pm

adifferentname wrote:
Campin_Cat wrote:
feral botanist wrote:
...Watergate co-conspirator John Ehrlichman, Nixon's White House domestic affairs adviser (1969-1973), bluntly responded that the so-called war on drugs was started to disrupt and imprison anti-war protesters and black people.

Welp----considering most anti-war protesters, during that era, were, by-a-wide-margin, WHITE..... It doesn't seem like any ONE race was targeted----therefore, NOT racist.

So you're saying the real target was hippies? Sounds like a reasonable policy to me. :lol:

LOL (wink)




_________________
White female; age 59; diagnosed Aspie.
I use caps for emphasis----I'm NOT angry or shouting. I use caps like others use italics, underline, or bold.
"What we know is a drop; what we don't know, is an ocean." (Sir Isaac Newton)


Campin_Cat
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2014
Age: 63
Gender: Female
Posts: 25,953
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.

03 Jan 2017, 1:48 pm

Jacoby wrote:
People use drugs for a reason and that reason needs to be addressed, addiction is just symptom of a larger illness and just attacking that symptom will never solve anything...

I agree.

I have used a similar argument when there is a mass murder----as in, the reason for such a heinous crime needs to be addressed (IMO, mental health).






_________________
White female; age 59; diagnosed Aspie.
I use caps for emphasis----I'm NOT angry or shouting. I use caps like others use italics, underline, or bold.
"What we know is a drop; what we don't know, is an ocean." (Sir Isaac Newton)


adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

03 Jan 2017, 7:45 pm

feral botanist wrote:
adifferentname wrote:

Pointing out your false inferences presented as strawmen is not a logical fallacy. You made multiple positive claims based on said inferences, absent any contextual evidence to support your interpretation, ergo the burden of proof is very much upon you. More pertinently, to claim superior knowledge of my motives than I myself make claim to is beyond arrogant.
Quote:

To which claims are you referring? The claims on racism? I provided some statistics and the original post about Nixon's aid.

Quote:
Regarding your claim of an ambiguity fallacy, kindly point out where I misrepresented the truth. You were clearly misled by your own failure to comprehend my meaning, exacerbated by your seeming desire to insert meaning where none was previously to be found.

You have adopted an extremely egocentric stance on a post that was directed towards the subject in general rather than towards you specifically. Much as I hate to p*ss in people's cornflakes, I regret to inform you that the world revolves around the sun.


Not sure how to deal with this?


You could start by reading the actual words rather than trying to insert your own meaning. It's astounding how many people seem to view that as unreasonable.

Quote:
It seems detached from reality, aside from the part about the the world which now that I look at it, it is not correct. The earth orbits the sun and revolves on a central axis, so you didn't even get that correct.


revolve

b. intr. Esp. of a celestial object: to perform a circular (or elliptical) motion; to orbit about (also round, around) a central point.

Hence:

revolution

I. Circular movement.
1. Astron.

a. The apparent movement of the sun, a constellation, the firmament, etc., around the earth; the movement of a planet, moon, satellite, etc., in a circular or elliptical course round another, or about a centre of mass; (now esp.) a single circuit of this kind.


But don't let reality stand in the way of your opinions.



feral botanist
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Jul 2016
Gender: Male
Posts: 881
Location: in the dry land

03 Jan 2017, 10:36 pm

Sorry you are correct, I had just never heard revolve used that way.



feral botanist
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Jul 2016
Gender: Male
Posts: 881
Location: in the dry land

03 Jan 2017, 10:40 pm

adifferentname wrote:
feral botanist wrote:
adifferentname wrote:

Pointing out your false inferences presented as strawmen is not a logical fallacy. You made multiple positive claims based on said inferences, absent any contextual evidence to support your interpretation, ergo the burden of proof is very much upon you. More pertinently, to claim superior knowledge of my motives than I myself make claim to is beyond arrogant.
Quote:

To which claims are you referring? The claims on racism? I provided some statistics and the original post about Nixon's aid.

Quote:
Regarding your claim of an ambiguity fallacy, kindly point out where I misrepresented the truth. You were clearly misled by your own failure to comprehend my meaning, exacerbated by your seeming desire to insert meaning where none was previously to be found.

You have adopted an extremely egocentric stance on a post that was directed towards the subject in general rather than towards you specifically. Much as I hate to p*ss in people's cornflakes, I regret to inform you that the world revolves around the sun.


Not sure how to deal with this?


You could start by reading the actual words rather than trying to insert your own meaning. It's astounding how many people seem to view that as unreasonable.

Quote:
It seems detached from reality, aside from the part about the the world which now that I look at it, it is not correct. The earth orbits the sun and revolves on a central axis, so you didn't even get that correct.


revolve

b. intr. Esp. of a celestial object: to perform a circular (or elliptical) motion; to orbit about (also round, around) a central point.

Hence:

revolution

I. Circular movement.
1. Astron.

a. The apparent movement of the sun, a constellation, the firmament, etc., around the earth; the movement of a planet, moon, satellite, etc., in a circular or elliptical course round another, or about a centre of mass; (now esp.) a single circuit of this kind.


But don't let reality stand in the way of your opinions.



My apology is above, but that does not mean the rest of your argument is valid.

So once again who is "wh***y" and why do you think "wh***y" would get blamed for the racism inherent in the US drug policy?



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

04 Jan 2017, 12:07 am

feral botanist wrote:
Sorry you are correct, I had just never heard revolve used that way.


Appreciated.

Quote:
So once again who is "wh***y" and why do you think "wh***y" would get blamed for the racism inherent in the US drug policy?


I've already answered this, as well as provided clarification as to the point I was making. Twice.

I don't believe there is inherent racism in the US drug policy as I've not seen any evidence to support such. There might be some merit to the notion that it's classist, but primarily it's "criminalist". Are black neighbourhoods affected positively or negatively when crack dealers are incarcerated? What are the opinions of black civic leaders on the appropriate measures we should employ to clean up their towns and cities and do they reflect the will of the black communities they serve?

According to Heather MacDonald (worth a read through):

"In 2006, blacks were 37.5 percent of the 1,274,600 state prisoners. If you remove drug prisoners from that population, the percentage of black prisoners drops to 37 percent—half of a percentage point, hardly a significant difference."



MDD123
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,007

04 Jan 2017, 11:06 am

Tim_Tex wrote:
As far as drug legalization goes, I can only support legalizing marijuana.

Does this mean if I don't support legalizing cocaine, heroin, meth, etc., then I hate black people?


I don't personally think any of it should be illegal, it shouldn't be prosecuted the way it currently is at the very least. I don't think its racist to not want it legal, but the effect of the law as it's applied is racist.


_________________
I'm a math evangelist, I believe in theorems and ignore the proofs.


feral botanist
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Jul 2016
Gender: Male
Posts: 881
Location: in the dry land

04 Jan 2017, 8:19 pm

adifferentname wrote:
feral botanist wrote:
Sorry you are correct, I had just never heard revolve used that way.


Appreciated.

Quote:
So once again who is "wh***y" and why do you think "wh***y" would get blamed for the racism inherent in the US drug policy?


I've already answered this, as well as provided clarification as to the point I was making. Twice.

I don't believe there is inherent racism in the US drug policy as I've not seen any evidence to support such. There might be some merit to the notion that it's classist, but primarily it's "criminalist". Are black neighbourhoods affected positively or negatively when crack dealers are incarcerated? What are the opinions of black civic leaders on the appropriate measures we should employ to clean up their towns and cities and do they reflect the will of the black communities they serve?

According to Heather MacDonald (worth a read through):

"In 2006, blacks were 37.5 percent of the 1,274,600 state prisoners. If you remove drug prisoners from that population, the percentage of black prisoners drops to 37 percent—half of a percentage point, hardly a significant difference."


So you think that black people commit more crime than white people?

I guess I did not understand your explanation about "wh***y", would you please give it to me again. Small words please.



feral botanist
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Jul 2016
Gender: Male
Posts: 881
Location: in the dry land

04 Jan 2017, 8:25 pm

adifferentname wrote:
feral botanist wrote:
Sorry you are correct, I had just never heard revolve used that way.


Appreciated.

Quote:
So once again who is "wh***y" and why do you think "wh***y" would get blamed for the racism inherent in the US drug policy?


I've already answered this, as well as provided clarification as to the point I was making. Twice.

I don't believe there is inherent racism in the US drug policy as I've not seen any evidence to support such. There might be some merit to the notion that it's classist, but primarily it's "criminalist". Are black neighbourhoods affected positively or negatively when crack dealers are incarcerated? What are the opinions of black civic leaders on the appropriate measures we should employ to clean up their towns and cities and do they reflect the will of the black communities they serve?

According to Heather MacDonald (worth a read through):

"In 2006, blacks were 37.5 percent of the 1,274,600 state prisoners. If you remove drug prisoners from that population, the percentage of black prisoners drops to 37 percent—half of a percentage point, hardly a significant difference."


Sorry. took me awhile to understand your argument. Sorry, but you do not seem to prove your point.

It just shows that more black people are incarcerated.

To prove your point, you would need data that shows black people use drugs at high rates than white people and are therefore incarcerated more.

You need to add the rates of drug use to make your conclusion accurate.

Lets see what we can find.



feral botanist
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Jul 2016
Gender: Male
Posts: 881
Location: in the dry land

04 Jan 2017, 8:30 pm

feral botanist wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
feral botanist wrote:
Sorry you are correct, I had just never heard revolve used that way.


Appreciated.

Quote:
So once again who is "wh***y" and why do you think "wh***y" would get blamed for the racism inherent in the US drug policy?


I've already answered this, as well as provided clarification as to the point I was making. Twice.

I don't believe there is inherent racism in the US drug policy as I've not seen any evidence to support such. There might be some merit to the notion that it's classist, but primarily it's "criminalist". Are black neighbourhoods affected positively or negatively when crack dealers are incarcerated? What are the opinions of black civic leaders on the appropriate measures we should employ to clean up their towns and cities and do they reflect the will of the black communities they serve?

According to Heather MacDonald (worth a read through):

"In 2006, blacks were 37.5 percent of the 1,274,600 state prisoners. If you remove drug prisoners from that population, the percentage of black prisoners drops to 37 percent—half of a percentage point, hardly a significant difference."


Sorry. took me awhile to understand your argument. Sorry, but you do not seem to prove your point.

It just shows that more black people are incarcerated.

To prove your point, you would need data that shows black people use drugs at high rates than white people and are therefore incarcerated more.

You need to add the rates of drug use to make your conclusion accurate.

Lets see what we can find.


First off we have this, but it does not support your argument.
"We fact-checked a similar statement in February 2016, when presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton declared that "African-Americans are more likely to be arrested by police and sentenced to longer prison terms for doing the same thing that whites do." We rated that statement True."
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/st ... es-blacks/


This doesn't seem to support it either.

"There are racial differences in the types of drugs being abused, according to surveys by the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Blacks, for example, are far less likely to have used marijuana, cocaine and hallucinogens in their lifetime than whites, but — at least in the case of marijuana — whites are more likely to give it up over time.

With that backdrop, the National Research Council report says, "In recent years, drug-related arrest rates for blacks have been three to four times higher than those for whites. In the late 1980s, the rates were six times higher for blacks than for whites.""
http://archive.samhsa.gov/data/NSDUH/20 ... tm#Tab1.1A



feral botanist
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Jul 2016
Gender: Male
Posts: 881
Location: in the dry land

04 Jan 2017, 8:35 pm

feral botanist wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
feral botanist wrote:
Sorry you are correct, I had just never heard revolve used that way.


Appreciated.

Quote:
So once again who is "wh***y" and why do you think "wh***y" would get blamed for the racism inherent in the US drug policy?


I've already answered this, as well as provided clarification as to the point I was making. Twice.

I don't believe there is inherent racism in the US drug policy as I've not seen any evidence to support such. There might be some merit to the notion that it's classist, but primarily it's "criminalist". Are black neighbourhoods affected positively or negatively when crack dealers are incarcerated? What are the opinions of black civic leaders on the appropriate measures we should employ to clean up their towns and cities and do they reflect the will of the black communities they serve?

According to Heather MacDonald (worth a read through):

"In 2006, blacks were 37.5 percent of the 1,274,600 state prisoners. If you remove drug prisoners from that population, the percentage of black prisoners drops to 37 percent—half of a percentage point, hardly a significant difference."


Sorry. took me awhile to understand your argument. Sorry, but you do not seem to prove your point.

It just shows that more black people are incarcerated.

To prove your point, you would need data that shows black people use drugs at high rates than white people and are therefore incarcerated more.

You need to add the rates of drug use to make your conclusion accurate.

Lets see what we can find.


This shows that blacks and whites use drugs at about the same rate.
Table 1.19B
http://archive.samhsa.gov/data/NSDUH/20 ... m#Tab1.19A


So if blacks and white use drugs at about the same rate, but blacks are arrested at much higher rates and receive more severe sentences, they what conclusion can we draw?



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

04 Jan 2017, 10:44 pm

feral botanist wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
feral botanist wrote:
Sorry you are correct, I had just never heard revolve used that way.


Appreciated.

Quote:
So once again who is "wh***y" and why do you think "wh***y" would get blamed for the racism inherent in the US drug policy?


I've already answered this, as well as provided clarification as to the point I was making. Twice.

I don't believe there is inherent racism in the US drug policy as I've not seen any evidence to support such. There might be some merit to the notion that it's classist, but primarily it's "criminalist". Are black neighbourhoods affected positively or negatively when crack dealers are incarcerated? What are the opinions of black civic leaders on the appropriate measures we should employ to clean up their towns and cities and do they reflect the will of the black communities they serve?

According to Heather MacDonald (worth a read through):

"In 2006, blacks were 37.5 percent of the 1,274,600 state prisoners. If you remove drug prisoners from that population, the percentage of black prisoners drops to 37 percent—half of a percentage point, hardly a significant difference."


Sorry. took me awhile to understand your argument. Sorry, but you do not seem to prove your point.


My point was that I haven't seen any evidence to support the assertion that the policy is racist. What makes you think that requires evidence?

Quote:
It just shows that more black people are incarcerated.


Have you read the article I linked?

Quote:
To prove your point, you would need data that shows black people use drugs at high rates than white people and are therefore incarcerated more.


See above. I provided context, I didn't make an assertion other than to inform you of my scepticism and the grounds for such.

Quote:
You need to add the rates of drug use to make your conclusion accurate.


What conclusion?

Quote:
This shows that blacks and whites use drugs at about the same rate.
Table 1.19B
http://archive.samhsa.gov/data/NSDUH/20 ... m#Tab1.19A


So if blacks and white use drugs at about the same rate, but blacks are arrested at much higher rates and receive more severe sentences, they what conclusion can we draw?


You can't draw any conclusions from incomplete data. Your position is utterly bereft of nuance and perspective.

What percentage of blacks and whites who are punished for drug-related crimes have a prior conviction? Is the war on drugs a war on drug use or drug distribution? What percentage of dealers and suppliers are white? What percentage of drug-related prosecutions are the result of contact crimes in each case? What is the profile of your typical white or black drug-related arrest? Are the police operating randomly or are they responding to victim complaints or other leads?

And those are just a handful of variables. If you want me to accept racism you'll have to paint a complete picture, with supporting data, rather than isolating a single statistic and pretending it's the only relevant one.

You've also completely ignored the questions I asked earlier, so I'll repeat them here in the vain hope that you might try and have a discussion rather than leap to absurd conclusions regarding my position:

"Are black neighbourhoods affected positively or negatively when crack dealers are incarcerated? What are the opinions of black civic leaders on the appropriate measures we should employ to clean up their towns and cities and do they reflect the will of the black communities they serve?"

Another way to think about it is: Is a black mayor or police chief more likely to take a strong stance against crime in a black community than a white mayor or police chief? Either way, is their position informed by said community or does it run counter to it?



feral botanist
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Jul 2016
Gender: Male
Posts: 881
Location: in the dry land

04 Jan 2017, 11:07 pm

I did read the article, it was crap.

I am sorry to have wasted your time.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,712
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

04 Jan 2017, 11:22 pm

feral botanist wrote:
feral botanist wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
feral botanist wrote:
Sorry you are correct, I had just never heard revolve used that way.


Appreciated.

Quote:
So once again who is "wh***y" and why do you think "wh***y" would get blamed for the racism inherent in the US drug policy?


I've already answered this, as well as provided clarification as to the point I was making. Twice.

I don't believe there is inherent racism in the US drug policy as I've not seen any evidence to support such. There might be some merit to the notion that it's classist, but primarily it's "criminalist". Are black neighbourhoods affected positively or negatively when crack dealers are incarcerated? What are the opinions of black civic leaders on the appropriate measures we should employ to clean up their towns and cities and do they reflect the will of the black communities they serve?

According to Heather MacDonald (worth a read through):

"In 2006, blacks were 37.5 percent of the 1,274,600 state prisoners. If you remove drug prisoners from that population, the percentage of black prisoners drops to 37 percent—half of a percentage point, hardly a significant difference."


Sorry. took me awhile to understand your argument. Sorry, but you do not seem to prove your point.

It just shows that more black people are incarcerated.

To prove your point, you would need data that shows black people use drugs at high rates than white people and are therefore incarcerated more.

You need to add the rates of drug use to make your conclusion accurate.

Lets see what we can find.


This shows that blacks and whites use drugs at about the same rate.
Table 1.19B
http://archive.samhsa.gov/data/NSDUH/20 ... m#Tab1.19A


So if blacks and white use drugs at about the same rate, but blacks are arrested at much higher rates and receive more severe sentences, they what conclusion can we draw?

It means it's wh***y's fault!! !! !! :lol:


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer