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.Addendum_Forthcoming said:Kay, I literally used your language and explained why it was a problematic statement that is a half truth. Like How Milo said trans women were more likely to be involved in sexual violence, without adding the the caveat; as victims of crime. It's morally wrong in numerous schools of philosophical discipline, and serves zero merit to the discussion other than; "This is how to be morally wrong."runic knight said:Ok, enough of this crap.
You replied to my post entirely without relevance to anything that was being said then act affronted that it is called out for being entirely without relevance to what was being said. You even missed the entire point of the post you quoted as you zeroed in on a single thing to shoot off in a bizarre tangent. You started talking about how your being well off means you get away with being a criminal. This in reply to talking about jon's reply video where he mentions that unpleasant statistics being said gives some people enough justification to call people racist. It doesn't relate to any point I was making there and it really looks like you were intentionally trying to derail things solely so you had excuse to gripe about trump again.
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.
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.
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.
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?Because it's not a fact that people should take on board ... the very rich can and do regularly commit crime. Regardless of race. They also commit civil wrongs to a far more gross level of occasioning. Sure, you might get mad at the person who pickpockets your wallet (a crime) ... but the court will just shake its head when someone like Donald Trump refuses to pay thousands of workers for labour given that unless they file for a class action they can't possibly recoup their losses and associated legal fees (not a crime).Your second part here is at least relevant to the thread. But you still fail to properly relate what you are talking about at any given point with what the person you are quoting was actually talking about, and honestly, I am tired of that laziness. You need to actually take the time to connect your frantic mental process so that others can follow. Sporadically ranting about Trump and expecting anyone to understand what the hell you are trying to say is just foolish.
A singular example does not make a statistic, nor does it prove anything. It is an anecdote, nothing more. And I called it that before, it is devoid of relevance so it is just useless overall. The stat used is at least a statistic about a trend in the population. You need relevance to make a case, and a singular example on its own can be an outlier. YOU can be an outlier that doesn't represent a trend. The stat jon cited represents an overall trend that can actually be applied (not that he did apply it) because it takes into account the total amount of crimes committed not just what could just be one very determined criminal. Do you understand the difference?It's wrong because it's codedly racist. I've likely committed more crimes than your average poor, working class Australian (or in fact, I know I have). Would you agree with the narrative that being right should facilitate the argument; "Wealthy Asian-Australian half breeds commit more crimes than working class Aussies..."? Or as a wealthy Australian who just so happens to have a Filo mother simply commits more crime than the average working class Australian?On the topic itself, I agree it is not racist. That was part of the point of mentioning how your argument would be applied the same way to being called racist as jon was. To show that those calling jon racist for it were in the wrong, especialyl in relation to his reply video where he specifically makes mention to how people reply to statistics they find uncomfortable by reacting poorly.
I disagree however that jon's quote is an economic one, as it specifically slices through that argument by pointing at economic status actively going against what you expect it to do. Well-off blacks committing more crimes than poor whites belies the claim that income is the primary factor for committing crime. Your own claims also actually further that as you are well off and still commit crimes by your own admission. Therefore if working from the perception of the stat that wealthy blacks commit more crimes than whites is true, the conclusion that crime is related to economic status primarily is not supported. Thus far you are the only one who has divided crime according to "street" and blue-collar, a separation that again has been given no relevance to anything and has been added into the mix just because you wanted it to. Does it relate to the stat that jon used before? I don't know, you never demonstrated or claimed anything like that, just worked it into your reply as though it should be there and stormed forward with your tangent.
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.What is the more accurate statement, and which one pushes for manufactured racist spiels? Basic utilitarianism ... the key to moral guidance is formulating the truest opinion one can have so that it most effectively governs their intelligent praxis. Me stating; "Rich Australians tend to commit more crime and civil wrongs than the average, working class Australian..." is a greater facilitator of intelligent praxis than merely assuming Black people are inherently more likely to commit crime because they are Black.
What does this have to do with anything about jon, how people responded to him, or what I was talking about?More over my statement actually addresses the idea of material wealth provided degrees of separation from police action, and the continued decriminalisation of white collar crime and civil wrongs. Hell, there's literally no excuse for wealthy people to commit the number of crimes they play a role in given just how much white collar crime has been stripped from policing and regulatory agencies to fight against.
What does this have to do with anything about jon, how people responded to him, or what I was talking about?Aboriginal kid steals a candy bar out of your store? That's a crime. Commonwealth Bank stealing the wealth of many thousands of mum and dad investors... making fraudulent claims of the merits of their financial services, and repurposing loan agreements and using fraudulent system of periodic withdrawals out of accounts? Bit iffy whether that's a crime ... I mean, it is, but good luck getting EVERYONE involved in that practice who materially benefitted and had an active hand in its formation put in cuffs.
When talking about how people responded to a statement made mentioning criminality of the wealthy, it is entirely derailing and self-serving to start a rant about your criminal history at a person commenting on how people responded to a comment. This is especially true when you were asked to demonstrate how it relates to my argument that you are replying to in the first place and you continue to fail to show that.Yes ... because bringing up white collar crime and the immunity of money, when talking about criminality of the wealthy, isn't a valid point of conjecture.Your side-commentary about social tuning and the like though is more irrelevant junk tacked on without any sort of connecting reason that you shared with the rest of us. Now I am sure there is something there, same with your insistence on bringing up trump previously, but when you don't show your work, it is pretty hard to follow exactly what you were trying to say or argue.
I am not challenging the entirely off-topic and self-aggrandizing rant you are making about wealthy people committing crimes in this thread about how a youtuber made comments and people responded to him to call him racist? Gee, I can't imagine why you quoting a person talking about how that youtuber's comments were being reacted to isn't addressing your tangent about wealthy people and crimes..Seriously, dude. None of this post actually challenges my point. It's just straw.
It is almost like you are arguing something else entirely that is barely connected at all and I don't dive a damn about your boasting of your criminal exploits when it doesn't relate to the post of mine you replied to in the first place.