Addendum_Forthcoming said:
runic knight said:
Try again, this time go slowly and actually connect the threads of thought you are having. Put them in a rational and consistent pattern of reason that properly demonstrates how you took what I was saying and reached the point you did. Because much like every time I talk with you, it seems you take a fraction of what is said and shoot off 10 miles down a backroad of mental tangents.
Okay ... what do I need to explain to you, precious? How it's uncomplicated in the nature of its duplicity as a statement?
Lets start simple. What does anything you were saying relate to any point I was talking about when you first replied to me? How does you going on about being wealthy and a criminal relate in the least to me talking about how people were responding to jon?
Remember, I, and most of the thread, is talking about how people responded to jon's comments, not the factual or validity of those comments itself. The only instances of talking about the validity of his comments relates to if he is lying about the stats. None of that relates to actually arguing about wealthy committing more of less crimes in general, least no arguments I have seen and none that I was trying to make.
Well it does because what makes a truth must be something that provides adequate information to discuss a subject matter. Can I ask you, personally, why people shouldn't run the dialogue of how this is a shitty debating tactic? Whatever happened to; "No bad tactics, only bad targets..." diatribe that doesn't seem to apply? Surely we're grown up enough to rationalize why someone will chuck his argument into the bin?
"What makes a truth..." What are you talking about? Do you mean "what makes a fact"? Because that simply needs to be, you know, factual.
Because while jon did use a statistic, he didn't use that to justify anything or any conclusion about black people. So what are you going on about "make a truth" and the like? It was a statistic without context. That was part of the point of why I was commenting on how people were taking that statistic without context and running with it to make conclussions about jon.
I mean, look at what you did here, you are talking about Milo now. What? Why? How does that relate? Why would I care about milo in a thread about Jon? What point is milo attached to? How the hell does it relate to Jon in this instance? At best you said "it is half truth" which seems the slimmest of reasons to justify your rant against someone you dislike, and when you spend more time on your rant than on the reasoning why it is relevant, I simply grow too tired to put up with it.
Because it's a perfect illustration where someone isn't outright lying, just misrepresenting and misframing the argument. I agree though, the two scenarios are different. Namely I think Jon isn't a racist ... merely an idiot. Whereas Milo is purposefully misrepresenting what criminal statistics are actually stating. But regardless of that, because I can't make a compelling argument that Jon doesn't know what he's talking about, I have to treat the argument as the same in terms of its liberal interpretation of truthfulness.
Ok, so you are claiming Jon is misrepresenting an argument and thus parallel to milo? What argument? Once again, what was his listing of the statistic being used for that was misrepresentative? I can get if he was talking about such stats to make sweeping generalities about black people being more violent, but that isn't the case. Instead it was a list of similar such stats and statements without any implying conclusions about race based on them all being used to demonstrate the response of making everything about race results in people replying to those making it all about race by , you guessed it, turning everything into being about race.
If all you were trying to say was "what jon said was a half-truth", then fine, just say that, keep it to that, and explain how that claim applies to what the hell I was talking about in the first place. Add the flavor text after you properly define the argument, not in place of one.
But it's noty merely flavour text ... I 100% agree with Jon if he's argument is the super wealthy commit more crime and civil wrongs than the poor and working class. But that's not the argument he's making, is it? Or if it is ... seems like a really stupid way to frame it. Taken in the context of it however, and his implied reasoning ... he's telling the truth ... just that his entire reasoning is flawed and his entire argument is based on a flawed understanding of what
crime is. In the sense that white collar crime
totally exists and it's far more common, and far more damaging, than street crime when taken specific demographics based on wealth.
That super wealthy black man isn't going to sticking up gas stations at 2AM like any poverty striken street hood. Their criminality will be framed in the argument of all other white collar crime regardless of race ... and is far more insidious, and far more untouchable, which emboldens its expression time and time again. Safe to say trhat an exceedingly lucky crook might get 8 or 9 jewelry or gas station heists or smash and grabs before being nabbed by police, being ratted out by enemies, or getting shot. If they're exceedingly lucky. With white collar crime, usually criminal activity is only known after repeated expressions of malicious intent and agency that leads to multiple damages for multiple parties.
He isn't making any argument relating to people like that though. That's the problem that spurred the thread, that he wasn't making any argument itself, just on what he was using as contextless statistics.
You continue to separate "street" and white collar crime here though I don't know why as you are the only one separating those types of crimes here. The stat itself certainly didn't separate it as far as I know, and the only way I can assume you are reaching that conclusions requires you to think that poor people only commit "street" crime and rich only commit white collar crime, something that is just weird.
While you are right a wealthy person wont commit the specific crime of a gas station robbery, it doesn't mean they wont still commit assault, murder or other types of violent crimes. And you ignore that identity theft, credit fraud and various other sorts of electric and paper robbery schemes are done just as easily by those on the street as those in the offices. I suppose the use of "street" crime as a definer is just too vague for me to get what you are actually talking about, especially in relation to why it matters to the stat jon was making or how people were responding to him and calling his reply racist.
How does anything you said here relate to what I was talking about? This is just an excuse to rant about trump, isn't it? I don't care at he moment. Ok, so you think "it" (the stat jon used I assume) isn't a fact people should accept. Why not? What is wrong with it? How does what the rich get away with relate at all with how rich black people are statistically more likely to commit crimes than poor white people according to the stat used? Skat at least made a good counterpoint that the system could be racist and just apply regardless of wealth, and while not entirely solid a counterpoint, it is at least relevant to the discussion as it explains why people are responding to him and calling him racist. You just gloated about breaking the law. How does that relate to what jon was saying, how people were responding to him, or what I was saying about that?
A: I didn't gloat about breaking the law. It was a blatant example of how wealthy people in general break the law far more than poor and working class people, and street crime by demographics of all working class people is substantially less than white collar """crime""" (because no one properly prosecutes it) of the rich.
Sure, you get caught for it ... it goes on record. It's provenly a crime. But it will never be treated as a crime.
How does that relate to jon's stat though where he specifically mentions only rich blacks doing more crime than poor whites? You seem to be talking about how rich people in general commit more crimes than poor (No clue where that statistic stems from beyond your personal claim) but I don't get how that relates to jon and the way he was responded to by people for using his stat in the first place.
How does it matter to the topic if rich commit more crimes than poors?
B: Because whether JonTron likes it or not, he is making a codedly racist argument. Does that make him a genuine racist? No, I don't think so. It makes him an idiot at worse, or impossibly naive or thoughtless at best that street crime is apparent the only thing that exists. Comparing rich black people to working class poor white people is not an accurate depiction of the types of crimes being committed. Why not measure to rich white crime?
What makes the argument racist is because it's misrepresenting two different situations and two dfferent types of crimes. Street crime and white collar. There is zero reasn for a rich person to stick up a Jeweler's ... they could gain far more money, almost blamelessly, by lying on their taxes. By necessity, it's easier to see and prosecute street crime than it is to genuinely prosecute white collar crime. Which typically involves far more people either refusing to respond to instances of corruption and fraud.
Hold up, so he isn't racist, but he is saying something that is racist because it doesn't respect income? Wait, what?
Ok, I get you are saying that rich crime is different than poor crime based on the type of crimes they do. So why does it matter at all when according to the stat you still have one demographic of rich is committing more of one type of crime than another demographic of poor people? Even if you differentiate the type of crimes to the extent you have (I still don't fully agree with your reasoning in doing so, it comes off as based entirely in your own views about income and the stereotypes that comes with that), you still have the stat itself simply being what it is.
Separated to just income demographics, you have blacks committing more crimes than whites universally. This would then usually have the reply that it is because of blacks not being on par with whites in income thus creating the disparity in the stats. If when adjusted to incomes, rich blacks still commit more crimes than poor whites, it calls that explanation into question. And according to you, rich people commit more crimes than poor anyways though are caught less (and thus the resulting decreased crime rate stat based on increase income in these sort of statistics). But wouldn't that simply make the statement even more potent, as despite their wealth offering them even more means to hide their crimes, blacks who are rich are still being caught committing more crimes than rich whites?
Or, are you saying the stat people should look at is if poor blacks are committing more crimes than rich whites instead? Because that stat isn't going to look any better to those who already dislike Jon's used one.
Hence why this is purely an economic issue.
There's nothing complicated about it. Have more money? Have better success at white collar crime, with better results.
Manufacturing the argument that it's somehow Black people are more likely to commit crime even in positions of wealth negates the fair more important message of; "Yeah, but why are rich people getting away with more crime?" And yeah. if you insist this idea of black, rich people are more criminal than white, poor people is a racial issue that's bad argumentation. The systems of their criminality, and its presence, will not differ to rich white people of equal wealth standing. Money is money.
Being black has nothng to do with you being rich and committing white collar crime like all other rich people.
No one is insisting anything, it is a statistic being used that shows that rich black people are committing more crimes than poor white ones. Your arguments here suggest they should be far less since they have the economic ability to get away with them more which is completely contrary to the stat brought up itself and only serves to support any claims made about black people rather than counter it (since the stat isn't an argument, simply a fact that needs to be addressed, your reasoning makes black rich people look even worse criminally as they are still more caught committing crimes than poor whites, despite the advantages of having different types of crimes they commit and more wealth to get away with said crimes.)
You've taken a stat about black people that was without context when jon said it, and inadvertently built an entire argument that justifies the very worst racist conclusion someone could have reached from that statistic, in order to argue that jon was being unintentionally racist.
A singular example does not make a statistic, nor does it prove anything. It is an anecdote, nothing more.
Yet it's far more prevalent in society. You'll find more active tax dodgers, insider traders, or what have you ... amidst people in positions of extraordinatry wealth than you will find poor, black or white people being active criminals.
That's not a
anecdote either....
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/tax-evasion-by-super-rich-hurts-every-australian-20141231-12gbd5.html
That's merely
known cases of tax evasion. One crime.
Committed multiple times by the same people, not just once. Yes, the average rich person commit
more crimes than any average poor person.
It's a fact of life. Pretending like it's an anecdote is downright fucking stupid.
When
you were talking about
your personal experiences, that was an anecdote. Now you've given some relevance to the use of it. Not much mind you, you offer no actual explanation of the article you link to, and from what I see there it talks about 5000 people committing the tax fraud. Which is considerably
LESS than the amount of poor people committing crimes.
But you know what? It is STILL not a statistic. You've given me raw data, so it is better than nothing I guess, but I was comparing your self-admitting criminal history to the actual topic of the discussion that of the statistic jon used.
your ranting about australians dodging taxes is simply irrelevant to anything being talked about here, nor does it compare to the statistic being cited by jon when all you have is something devoid of relevance even to itself, and pretty unrelated to anything anyone was talking about in the first place.
The statement that looks at the whole group and reports simple factual data about said group is infinitely more accurate than you using yourself as an example and claiming it represents the entirety of groups you represent. Even if the stat itself isn't very useful on its own, when it comes to accuracy, the one that is simply reporting a fact about the entirety of a group would by all logic and reason always be more accurate description of a group than a singular example claiming to represent a group. I don't know why that would even be asked.
But it's not factual in so far that
RICH PEOPLE COMMIT CMORE CRIMES THAN THE WORKING CLASS POOR!!!
A statistic of another nation is not factual, but your ranting about your own criminal history and (finally) linking of an article talking about how 5000 people came forward in a completely different nation being talked about is more accurate?
Rich commit more crimes than working class poor? Prove it.
Actually, no, first define it properly. Then prove it. You seem to thing crimes are different for poor and rich as it is. And I don't even know if you are talking about percentage based or collectively, what defines "rich" or "poor" here, or even what damn nation you are specifying or if you are talking world-wide, so be sure to clarify that first before proving because I have my doubts you'll find any statistics to demonstrate this at all. And if all you end up having is a claim that rich people are committing more crimes built out of extrapolated examples and personal anecdote, I wont even be surprised at this point.
It is entirely unrelated to the topic at all at this point but you know what, what the hell, why not this time. I want to see this one.
