Vic says: “I made a counter argument. Saying they were bad because of the effects their movement has had. Based on the premise that.
“you are not being killed/hunted any more than anyone else”
These things are not actually mutually exclusive. As your reasoning for them being “good” is based on the idea that not wanting to be killed by police is good. My reasoning, that basing a movement on such a divisive subject, especially when it is not supported by the actual number of people being killed, is also true.
Isn’t that kind of the point of this type of argument?”
Umm…. MAYBE. Sort of …. Not really… let me try to explain where you’re falling apart here.
So here’s the key… going to your first point:
“But that is not what we are arguing. We are not arguing whether or not Black lives actually matter. You presented their premise as the reason for your assessment that they are “good”.”
Right… we’re not… except you sort of are. MY argument, throughout the initial post was specific and focused. I did that on purpose.
If I had been doing this as an exercise with my students, I’d ask them something like: “Ok, class, please state your thesis in a tweet” In other words, I’d ask them to present their main argument in 140 characters or less.
Mine is “BLM is better than the KKK or the Nazis because it was founded on protection of lives and the others were founded on racial discrimination.”
BOOM! 139 characters, because I fucking rock!
That’s is the crux of my argument. I have told you my evaluative claim (BLM is better than the KKK and the Nazis) and provided you with a preview of the argument that I am making it with (the three historical ideologies). Literally nothing else maters to the argument as I have framed it.
I will admit, I did NOT prove that “wanting to not be killed is good.” I took that as a given, which you can actually do under a reasonable person principle. You can, for the most part, assume that no person regardless of ideology wants to be killed.
I did not prove that black people actually were being killed by the police. By the same token, I didn’t prove that they were ever slaves. I didn’t prove that white people weren’t actually evolutionarily superior. None of that actually mattered to my argument. All that matters for the purposes of my argument are that “this is the ideology the groups were founded under.
And I’m right. Historically. I’m just right. You can try to argue those basic points, but you’d objectively wrong. So you didn’t.
And I knew that… which is why I framed the argument that way.
So instead, your counter argument is “But they’re not being killed more”
There are two problems here. First, is that you’re using statistics wrong. This has come up before. This is what Michael Strauss, Erin Childs and Dmitri Schoeman are attempting to show you. Statistical significance is a specific concept. It’s a thing. It’s mathematically provable. And you’re just doing it wrong.
I didn’t bother to take that step. Because it was immaterial to my argument. IF this had been your post, unrelated to mine, you could make an evaluative claim that said something like “BLM is a hypocritical movement because it is based around a premise that is statistically invalid and uses that to support violent actions.” (BOOM, 139 characters again, I’m on fucking fire here.) Strauss, Erin and Dmitri would then have counted argued you the same way they are, but pointing out flaws in your statistical reasoning.
BUT, you didn’t promote that as a standalone premise. You specifically positioned yourself as a counterargument to me. Your actual thesis is something more like “Mav is wrong; BLM is bad because statistics don’t prove Mav’s theory that BLM is non-violent or that they are killed more than white people.” (BOOM! 140 characters on the dot, fucking hat trick, hell yeah!!!)
This falls down because you ended up arguing against a straw man that wasn’t me, not really refuting my actual claims and still presenting your statistical evidence in a faulty way.