Community >> View Post
·
Post By
Paladin

Location: Prague, Bohemia
Member Since: Tue Apr 06, 2010
Posts: 1,117
In Reply To
bd2999

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 14,081
Subj: Re: did you read the BBC article? read the conclusion.
Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2017 at 08:10:03 pm EDT (Viewed 120 times)
Reply Subj: Re: did you read the BBC article? read the conclusion.
Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2017 at 07:49:44 pm EDT (Viewed 118 times)



    Quote:
    Did you read it?



    Quote:
    This is how it ends.



    Quote:
    "The debate over this continues, both on the streets and in academia."



    Quote:
    Towards the end a study is reported. Several studies or reports are discussed in the article. You picked the one at the end and claimed it was representative of the article.


No, I included earlier paragraphs as well that you didnt respond to. The article ends on an inconclusive note. If you want to pick out data in there to use against Elder, great. But constantly repeating "read it. its all there" isnt persuasive.


    Quote:


      Quote:
      Holy cow:-) Did you read your own article?:-)

      Quote:

        Quote:
        there is a lot in there but,

        Quote:

          Quote:
          Here's how it ends.

          Quote:

            Quote:
            "However, Fryer doesn't find any racial difference in the cases where police offers actually shoot someone."

            Quote:

              Quote:
              So you are cross with me that I didnt find that article a persuasive argument to use against Elder? I don't think that conclusion would help.



    Quote:
    I an annoyed that from one unsourced interview you believe this fellow is the end all be all source. When his conclusions from numbers given are jumps at times.


I DON"T believe this fellow. I was looking for COUNTER arguments. I mean, seriously. How many times need I repeat it.


    Quote:

      Quote:

      The BBC article mostly focuses on the perception that police are being killed more.



    Quote:
    If by the first part, sure. I am not sure I would say most.


Ok the first half then. I'm just trying to point out why THAT article would not be a great counter to Elder.


    Quote:

      Quote:

      Listen, I think you are still angry at me. Im not angry at you because there was a misunderstanding. We both took a few low blows at each other so I really dont have any hard feelings. (You called yourself a jerk. I didnt.) My comments about your style do stand and feel free to give me any advice on my conversational shortcomings.



    Quote:
    Yes, mocking people is the true sign of an open argument. Whatever you want to think man.


Ok, its clear there is nothing I can say at this point. You are offended.


How about this: Im sorry we were talking at cross purposes.

If you don't think you are gonna persuade anyone, why come on this forum at all? To hear yourself type? To feel superior to those who are "so easily persuaded" like me?

I would really like you to look in the mirror on this one. I have probably botched any chance of that with my own piss-poor style. Reconsider the condescending tone. Not with me. With other people you engage with. Please don't just dismiss this because you are cross. I am sincerely trying to make amends.

Take care. and I mean it.



    Quote:

      Quote:

      My "ha,ha" was actually sincere at the situation.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        take care.



Posted with Google Chrome 58.0.3029.110 on Windows 7
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2017 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2017 by Alvaro Ortiz and Dave Galanter. Software Copyright © 2003-2017 Powermad Software