TLHLIM

chop2chip said:
Or ya know.. we could just enforce the current laws on the books. Keep the violent criminals in prison

Personally I think black people with no criminal record have a right to purchase a gun to protect themselves especially because they live in crime ridden areas.
Click to expand...
I’d do this and also not wait around for someone to be killed/robbed l/terrorized before doing something especially when profiling could stop a lot of this.

Again - tell me what Giuliani did in NYC wasn’t incredibly effective.
 
thethe said:
I’d do this and also not wait around for someone to be killed/robbed l/terrorized before doing something especially when profiling could stop a lot of this.

Again - tell me what Giuliani did in NYC wasn’t incredibly effective.
Click to expand...
Rudi cracked down on minor offenses across the board. He didn’t, for example, crack down on petty theft only committed by blacks.

I’ve already said I’m in favor of prosecuting for crimes. If those crimes are committed more proportionately by blacks, so be it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jaw
chop2chip said:
Rudi cracked down on minor offenses across the board. He didn’t crack down on petty theft only committed by blacks.
Click to expand...
Yes - stated policy versus actually implemented policy. Who do you think was committing all the crime that was being cracked down on?

It was amazingly effective.
 
Did Rudi tell his police chief?

“Commissioner - I need you to do something about these broken windows. But not all broken windows, just the ones broken by blacks”
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jaw
chop2chip said:
Did Rudi tell his police chief?

“Captain - I need you to do something about these broken windows. But not all broken windows, just the ones broken by blacks”
Click to expand...

The results speak for themselves. Should I present to you countless articles at the time that spoke of this?
 
acesfull86 said:
Chef's kiss
Click to expand...

This post right here mocks the idea that black people will vote for republicans if racial profiling is implemented to make their streets safer. The implication being that they'd rather be virtue signaled than make their streets safer.

Strawman argument? Sure thing bud....
 
thethe said:
This post right here mocks the idea that black people will vote for republicans if racial profiling is implemented to make their streets safer. The implication being that they'd rather be virtue signaled than make their streets safer.

Strawman argument? Sure thing bud....
Click to expand...
Should we walk through this slowly?

A straw man is when someone distorts another person's argument to make it easier to attack. That person then refutes the claim that's easier to take down (the straw man), rather than the actual argument that was originally made.

Maybe an example would make this clearer:

Person A says- "Black people do not want to be subjected to racial profiling by police."

Person B responds - "Oh, so you think black people don't value their safety and security."

Do you see where the straw man was employed by Person B? I'll give it a second.............. See, Person A never argued that "black people don't value their safety and security," a claim that is clearly wrong and very easy to refute. Black people, like all people, obviously value their safety and security. What person A said was that "black people do not want to be subjected to racial profiling by the police," which is a very different argument than the straw man that was substituted in by Person B.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mqt
acesfull86 said:
Should we walk through this slowly?

A straw man is when someone distorts another person's argument to make it easier to attack. That person then refutes the claim that's easier to take down (the straw man), rather than the actual argument that was originally made.

Maybe an example would make this clearer:

Person A says- "Black people do not want to be subjected to racial profiling by police."

Person B responds - "Oh, so you think black people don't value their safety and security."

Do you see where the straw man was employed by Person B? I'll give it a second.............. See, Person A never argued that "black people don't value their safety and security," a claim that is clearly wrong and very easy to refute. Black people, like all people, obviously value their safety and security. What person A said was that "black people do not want to be subjected to racial profiling by the police," which is a very different argument than the straw man that was substituted in by Person B.
Click to expand...

Let me ask you why you quoted those two posts and said 'Chefs Kiss' - What implication were you making?

You quoted those two things because you thought they were hysterically contradictive and that it made no sense. Therefore, the implication being that black people could not possibly vote for Republicans 'in droves' if they instituted racial profiling in policing despite their streets being safer as a result.
 
acesfull86 said:
Should we walk through this slowly?

A straw man is when someone distorts another person's argument to make it easier to attack. That person then refutes the claim that's easier to take down (the straw man), rather than the actual argument that was originally made.

Maybe an example would make this clearer:

Person A says- "Black people do not want to be subjected to racial profiling by police."

Person B responds - "Oh, so you think black people don't value their safety and security."

Do you see where the straw man was employed by Person B? I'll give it a second.............. See, Person A never argued that "black people don't value their safety and security," a claim that is clearly wrong and very easy to refute. Black people, like all people, obviously value their safety and security. What person A said was that "black people do not want to be subjected to racial profiling by the police," which is a very different argument than the straw man that was substituted in by Person B.
Click to expand...
And the funny thing is, we don’t even have to really guess at this. Obviously black people are not a monolith, but there’s no shortage of tough on crime policies that did not sway black voters throughout the past few decades, in no small part because they amounted to racial profiling that didn’t actually accomplish a whole lot. It’s not novel just because Trump is using more federal might now.
 
mqt said:
And the funny thing is, we don’t even have to really guess at this. Obviously black people are not a monolith, but there’s no shortage of tough on crime policies that did not sway black voters throughout the past few decades, in no small part because they amounted to racial profiling that didn’t actually accomplish a whole lot. It’s not novel just because Trump is using more federal might now.
Click to expand...

Then a man broke through and changed everything.

"What do you have to lose?"

Miraculously, black men starting voting more for Trump/Republicans as a result.

Imagine continuing to think that past is prologue.

I mean shit, Biden/HRC used to call them super predators and they voted fro the Dems at 95+%.
 
thethe said:
Let me ask you why you quoted those two posts and said 'Chefs Kiss' - What implication were you making?

You quoted those two things because you thought they were hysterically contradictive and that it made no sense. Therefore, the implication being that black people could not possibly vote for Republicans 'in droves' if they instituted racial profiling in policing despite their streets being safer as a result.
Click to expand...
I'll answer your question when you acknowledge you understand what a straw man fallacy is and accept that you're continuing to use one to forward your argument

I can give another example:

Person A - "Donald Trump's tariffs are counterproductive and harm both producers and consumers in the United States."
Person B - "Oh so you endorse China using slave labor?"
 
thethe said:
Then a man broke through and changed everything.

"What do you have to lose?"

Miraculously, black men starting voting more for Trump/Republicans as a result.

Imagine continuing to think that past is prologue.

I mean shit, Biden/HRC used to call them super predators and they voted fro the Dems at 95+%.
Click to expand...
Anything could happen, but we’re a decade into the Trump Era and that tide hasn’t really shifted.
 
acesfull86 said:
I'll answer your question when you acknowledge you understand what a straw man fallacy is and accept that you're continuing to use one to forward your argument
Click to expand...

Why would I accept something that isn't true.

You literally quoted two posts which showed that you thought it was hysterical to think that black people would vote for Republicans despite instituting racial profiling resulting in safer streets.

I think you should just own what you say and not make false accusations.
 
acesfull86 said:
I'll answer your question when you acknowledge you understand what a straw man fallacy is and accept that you're continuing to use one to forward your argument

I can give another example:

Person A - "Donald Trump's tariffs are counterproductive and harm both producers and consumers in the United States."
Person B - "Oh so you endorse China using slave labor?"
Click to expand...

This is actually a strawman.

Its also shortsighted and naive to only think of this in the short term.
 
Instead of 'laughing' at a post why don't you tell me why you chose those two posts and reply with 'chefs kiss'.

WHat were you trying to say?
 
Maybe Grok can help

Prompt: Person A says- "Black people do not want to be subjected to racial profiling by police."

Person B responds - "Oh, so you think black people don't value their safety and security."

Is this a logical fallacy?

Grok: Yes, Person B's response is a logical fallacy, specifically a **strawman fallacy**. Person A expresses a concern about racial profiling by police, which implies a desire for fair treatment and freedom from discriminatory practices. Person B misrepresents this by suggesting that Person A is implying black people don't care about safety and security, which is not what Person A said or implied. By distorting Person A's argument into a weaker or unrelated claim, Person B creates a "strawman" to attack, rather than addressing the actual issue of racial profiling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top