Vic, again…. I don’t think you understand what you’re arguing. I know you think that’s an insult. It’s not. This isn’t an “opinion piece” It’s arguably an evaluative piece or a definitional piece. That’s it. I didn’t use stats. I didn’t need them. You added those in.
Here’s the key argument that I made:
BLM is founded on the principle that too many black people are being killed. They would like it to be less.
Too many is not a statistic. It could just as easily be a million or 1. So long as the number isn’t 0, it can be less. We know the number isn’t zero. And so the statement I made is unequivocally true.
Now, their statement of “too many” is an opinion. One could argue with BLM (not me) by making the counter claim “It’s not too many… it’s not even enough! Kill more black people!” This is essentially the argument the KKK is making.
In this case, the KKK makes more sense than you because they are countering BLM with an equally opinion based argument. You’re trying to counter my historic argument, which is simply true. With a stat based one… and your stats are bad. Which has REPEATEDLY been pointed out to you. Hell, you just told Steph that she was doing them wrong because you’re simply right… and SHE TEACHES THEM. You’re just losing here.
Now, where my opinion comes in, you did sort of note: I said “BLM is good and KKK is bad” in the title based under the simple idea that I decided it was an unstated given that we can claim “wanting people not to die is good” and “wanting people to die is bad.” Yes, that part is an opinion. I didn’t prove it. I didn’t validate it. But it’s not a statistical opinion, so you aren’t actually countering it, even if your stats were right… which again… THEY AREN’T. What you COULD do, is present a philosophical argument that more people dying is a good thing. Or that it isn’t necessarily bad to thin the herd. That would counter what I said… Of course, everyone would say “dude, are you arguing for genocide? Because that sounds awfully racist” and you’d have to answer yes.
instead, your fundamental argument is based around the fact that “only 400 out of 3million black people die. And in the grand scheme of things. That doesn’t matter because those numbers are insignificant. If it were 1/3 you’d have a point. Stop bitching.”
The problem is that DOESN’T actually prove what you think it does. First, again, as has REPEATEDLY BEEN POINTED OUT TO YOU…. you’re doing statistics wrong. You chose two arbitrary numbers that don’t actually mean what you think they mean. Second, as Strauss has repeatedly pointed out to you, even if you used those numbers, your math is bad… it would still show that black people are statistically more likely to be killed by police than white people by a statistically significant margin…. which is the exact opposite of what you’re trying to prove. Your cherry picked numbers DON’T SUPPORT YOUR POINT.
And even if you could get the numbers right. You’d still be poorly refuting my article. Because the truth value of BLM’s premise is completely irrelevant. Imagine I had said this:
“Flat Earth Society Good. KKK Bad” – The flat earth society is based around the fundamental belief that the world is flat. The KKK is based around the fundamental belief that we should kill black people. Therefore, the Flat Earth Society are better people than the KKK.
That is structurally the same argument as I made about BLM. Now…. you COULD make the counter claim that “But this is dumb… because the Earth is round. So the FES isn’t good!” Except, that your counter claim doesn’t ACTUALLY dispute me. Because I never said the earth was flat. I said the FES believes that. So what you’d actually need to prove in order to refute me is that believing the earth is flat is worse than killing black people.
Instead, you’re not doing either. You’re trying to calculate the surface area of the Earth. Which is wholly irrelevant to either thing. What you mean to be doing is a geometric proof that shows the earth to a spherical object in 3-dimensional space… but that’s hard. So you’re trying to claim that your proof of surface area is good enough. But it isn’t it doesn’t even refute the FES. It just proves that you can calculate surface area. And no one is debating that.