Dave Galanter
December 1st 1969 - December 12th 2020
He was loved.

Community >> View Post
Post By

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
In Reply To

Location: Prague, Bohemia
Member Since: Tue Apr 06, 2010
Posts: 1,856
Subj: Re: Systemic racism
Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2017 at 04:54:10 pm EDT (Viewed 1186 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Systemic racism
Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2017 at 04:25:51 pm EDT (Viewed 1166 times)

    Ok Im getting a spam warning and you seemed to be replying to yourself at points there, a sure sign that the post is getting too convoluted.

I got that on the post about traveling above and cannot reply to it. Strange stuff.

I saw one example of that, me replying to myself. Very strange.

    You are concerned?
    I'm a bit concerned with you that you consider me pursuaded one way or the other. I just asked for a good solid argument to refute Elder's objection.

But you were also willing to dismiss flaws, from a statistical point of view of the quality of the information. And then go on to claim that the article I posted had no relevant statistics and you were leaning towards the other fellow because of statistics.

Despite the fact that statistics in and of itself, as you were trying to point out at times, would not in and of themselves support racism. Do you see the issue with that?

    You know, bd, you can go from fairly pleasant to interact with to very condescending very quickly. You might consider working on this aspect of your interaction because it puts people off. At least it puts me off.

Did you or did you not read the article I provided and say the following

"thats fine. But again, without stats in support of it, it really falls apart.

I do feel there must be more to it that gut feelings and anecdotal evidence. But until it is demonstrated, I'll have to say Mr Elder has stats on his side"

Despite the fact that the first article does provide statistics on varying topics related and lays out the issues with the statistics from the head of the FBI. The agency that monitors such things.

So the system is flawed and we do not know enough to get accurate representations, but the guy somehow has stats on his side when nobody can?

That is logically inconsistent. You can look at it as condescending, but all I can do is put information out there from the sources with the most knowledge in the area.

So, I do not know of an incredibly polite way to say that your statement was mistaken.

It is frustrating to put material out there and then dismissed for the wrong reasons.

Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 53.0 on Windows 7
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2021 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2021 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2021 Powermad Software