Fact Free Frame Up

All other Political discussion that does not affect our ability to enjoy the outdoors.
User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 529
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Fact Free Frame Up

#1

Post by GregD » Tue Jan 17, 2017 10:43 am

Posted on another thread (http://www.hammockhangers.net/viewtopic ... 9&start=45)
sarge wrote: As to the societal benefits of the taxation/regulation differences between the number of reasons we gave the government to send men with guns to our houses in 1950 as compared to today, and appropos of my comment about the societal realities of high tax policies, I offer this:
Image
The quoted poster is hard to see. Here it is full size: Image
OMG! Electing Democrats nukes cities!!!!

Hmmm...

Silcon Valley is arguably the most productive and profitable area in the US currently. That area includes San Jose and San Francisco. For San Jose (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayor_of_San_Jose)
Since 1967, San Jose has elected its mayors by a popular vote...

All elected mayors of San Jose have been members of the Democratic Party.
All mayors of San Francisco have been Democratic since 1968.

Boston is, for the US a very old city. It is also a vibrant city. It has had only Democratic mayors since 1938.

Sarge's offering is as honest as saying vinegar killed Jesus (John 19:29-30):
A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus' lips. When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.
Electing Democrats nukes cities. Just like drinking vinegar killed Jesus.

Fact free frame up.

So much for "Thou shalt not bear false witness".

Rubbish.



User avatar
sarge
Reactions:
Posts: 2068
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:14 am
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:
Contact:

Re: Fact Free Frame Up

#2

Post by sarge » Tue Jan 17, 2017 8:38 pm

GregD wrote:Posted on another thread (http://www.hammockhangers.net/viewtopic ... 9&start=45)
sarge wrote: As to the societal benefits of the taxation/regulation differences between the number of reasons we gave the government to send men with guns to our houses in 1950 as compared to today, and appropos of my comment about the societal realities of high tax policies, I offer this:
Image
The quoted poster is hard to see. Here it is full size: Image
OMG! Electing Democrats nukes cities!!!!

Hmmm...

Silcon Valley is arguably the most productive and profitable area in the US currently. That area includes San Jose and San Francisco. For San Jose (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayor_of_San_Jose)
Since 1967, San Jose has elected its mayors by a popular vote...

All elected mayors of San Jose have been members of the Democratic Party.
All mayors of San Francisco have been Democratic since 1968.

Boston is, for the US a very old city. It is also a vibrant city. It has had only Democratic mayors since 1938.

Sarge's offering is as honest as saying vinegar killed Jesus (John 19:29-30):
A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus' lips. When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.
Electing Democrats nukes cities. Just like drinking vinegar killed Jesus.

Fact free frame up.

So much for "Thou shalt not bear false witness".

Rubbish.

Dude.

Lighten up.

"Bear false witness."

Really?

I get it. San Jose and San Francisco are doing well. Two cities that share San Francisco Bay. Two cities that are in the area the current Minority Leader of the House calls home.

That doesn't mean that Detriot is doing well (which means I didn't bear false witness).

Or that Chicago is.

Or Milwaukee.

Or most of the rest of the cities in this country.
You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My You Tube Channel

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 729
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: Fact Free Frame Up

#3

Post by BillyBob66 » Wed Jan 18, 2017 2:33 pm

sarge wrote: Dude.

Lighten up.

"Bear false witness."

Really?

I get it. San Jose and San Francisco are doing well. Two cities that share San Francisco Bay. Two cities that are in the area the current Minority Leader of the House calls home.

That doesn't mean that Detriot is doing well (which means I didn't bear false witness).

Or that Chicago is.

Or Milwaukee.

Or most of the rest of the cities in this country.
That was sort of my 1st response also, though I did not have the energy to do the research and provide the exact facts. A brief look did turn up a whole bunch of other cities which were doing pretty badly, and many with lots of violent crime, and the vast majority I looked at had democrats governing for a long time. The 2 you mentioned to start with, and you could add Baltimore(mayor and all 15 city council members Democrats(now there is diversity for you!). And which ranks #6 nationally for violent crime:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U ... crime_rate

And St. Louis at # 4, mayor is dem and the list of alderman I am seeing does not state party, but anyone want to bet? And just up the road from me, Memphis. #8 for murder and #2 for over all violent crime: Dem mayor. Once again can not easily find a list of city council members party, but again I will say: want to bet? And if you sort these cities by murder, St. Louis comes in at #1, followed closely by Detroit. I am shocked to see Chicago way down at #19 on this list when sorted by murder rate, considering the slaughter that seems to occur there every week end. Maybe some one else

If someone else wants to do the work to spell it all out for each city, fine. But I am willing to bet money that, if you rank the above cities either by violent crime, or murders, or rape ( Anchorage #1! Dem mayor ) if you look at the top 20 I bet Democrat government predominates, even if not 100%. ( although, my gut feeling is: 100% Dem, certainly 95% )

BTW, I was surprised to find Boston, mentioned in the OP, as one of the top 10 poorest cities:
http://www.cbsnews.com/media/americas-1 ... -cities/3/

I also see many Democrat governed cities on that list, though I have not checked each one to make sure that they are. I am, however, willing to bet a $ that the majority are indeed governed by Dems.
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 729
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: Fact Free Frame Up

#4

Post by BillyBob66 » Wed Jan 18, 2017 2:52 pm

Oh, and how can I forget: Washington DC, # 13 for violent crime, #16 for murder and #19 for rape. No one is really going to make me bother with looking up the government of DC, are you?

And if we are going to present a couple of lucky and extremely unusual cities like SF and San Jose, shouldn't we consider their neighbors Oakland(#3 violent crime) and Stockton, #8? After all, they are all in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Jose- ... tical_Area
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 529
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Fact Free Frame Up

#5

Post by GregD » Wed Jan 18, 2017 2:59 pm

It's easier to come back from a nuclear strike than five decades of Democrat control of government.
That was the assertion of Sarge's poster.

A single counter example refutes the hypothesis. QED. If you are being logical, that is. But y'all aren't. Which is further exemplified by the cherry picking in an attempt to support a different hypothesis of a trend.

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 529
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Fact Free Frame Up

#6

Post by GregD » Wed Jan 18, 2017 3:08 pm

BillyBob66 wrote:Oh, and how can I forget: Washington DC, # 13 for violent crime, #16 for murder and #19 for rape. No one is really going to make me bother with looking up the government of DC, are you?

And if we are going to present a couple of lucky and extremely unusual cities like SF and San Jose, shouldn't we consider their neighbors Oakland(#3 violent crime) and Stockton, #8? After all, they are all in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Jose- ... tical_Area
And Jesus died right after drinking vinegar. So the vinegar killed Jesus. Same "logic" that you are using. Never mind that there was more to the story. But y'all don't care about that; you can't let the facts get in the way of a good punch line.

User avatar
sarge
Reactions:
Posts: 2068
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:14 am
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:
Contact:

Re: Fact Free Frame Up

#7

Post by sarge » Wed Jan 18, 2017 7:38 pm

GregD wrote:
It's easier to come back from a nuclear strike than five decades of Democrat control of government.
That was the assertion of Sarge's poster.
It was also a humorous meme.

Like this one:
Image I think its going to be a rather interesting four years, perhaps eight.
You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My You Tube Channel

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 729
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: Fact Free Frame Up

#8

Post by BillyBob66 » Wed Jan 18, 2017 11:51 pm

Cherry picking? I don't know, SF and SJ seem more like the cherry picking, considering the long list of crime infested- and often poverty ridden- cities that are Dem run.

Also, if you had a long list of victims who died immediately after vinegar touched their lips, and who were not already almost dead from crucifixion- you might be on to something with the vinegar. It would certainly warrant looking into. In this case we have a very long list of cities which are crime infested, and very often impoverished, and almost all run by Dems. With only the rare example of the reverse. It might be worth looking into.
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 529
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Fact Free Frame Up

#9

Post by GregD » Thu Jan 19, 2017 9:35 am

BillyBob66 wrote:Cherry picking? I don't know, SF and SJ seem more like the cherry picking, considering the long list of crime infested- and often poverty ridden- cities that are Dem run.
From your posts it seems that indeed you don't know and are determined to keep it that way. I guess that works for you; it gets you easily and reliably to the political and religious conclusions that you seem to prefer. Thankfully you aren't involved in the design or review of medical research. But then this is all just a joke, right?

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 729
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: Fact Free Frame Up

#10

Post by BillyBob66 » Thu Jan 19, 2017 10:27 am

GregD wrote:
BillyBob66 wrote:Cherry picking? I don't know, SF and SJ seem more like the cherry picking, considering the long list of crime infested- and often poverty ridden- cities that are Dem run.
From your posts it seems that indeed you don't know and are determined to keep it that way. I guess that works for you; it gets you easily and reliably to the political and religious conclusions that you seem to prefer. Thankfully you aren't involved in the design or review of medical research. But then this is all just a joke, right?
I provide you with stats having to do with crime stats that seem to indicate that crime, and maybe also poverty, tend to be far worse in cities run by Dems, with the Dem run cities outnumbering the Rep run cities by maybe 10 or 20 to one. Including two very close neighbors of SF and SJ. This simply in response to your cherry picking of SF/SJ. And your response is that thankfully I am not involved in medical research? So I guess you must be denying the facts that I have provided? They are not true? Is that your claim?

I have noticed a trend of you taking things more and more personal, the old Ad Hominem approach. It has not been severe yet, but it is becoming noticeable. You have told me that I am not a very nice person, that I you think I m totally nuts, and this current one that I am being obtuse: I don't know and am determined to keep it that way. The real trouble with that is I am always tempted to respond in kind and get personal. But I really want to avoid that. If we are to continue to communicate ( should we? ), I request that you avoid it also.

For years I have been pointing out the irrational path debates tend to travel down when libs debate conservatives. It is something like this:
Conservative: " We need to reduce taxes due to X, Y and Z.".
Liberal: "You are mean". Or "mean spirited". Or "stupid".

This is also what we are observing in our nation right now. The accusations are that the mean, fascist Republicans and conservatives were not going to accept the results of the election, and are going to going to hurt many innocent people, maybe even with violence. But so far, based on realities that can be observed as we approach the inauguration, we are observing many examples of all of that coming virtually 99% from the other side. We simply have not observed much violence or threats of t coming from the conservative side, have we? We have not observed Trump voters dragging innocent Clinton voters from their cars and beating them for that, have we? Or torturing a disabled boy because he was a member of the group of assumed Trump voters? Or shutting down freeways and hindering emergency vehicles? Greg, in the real world, whose side does most of that nasty stuff usually come from? It comes from your side, even as your side is warning that we are going to act that way.

Much as, almost 100% of the time, the cities dominated by the folks who "care", aka Dems, or normally the most crime ridden and also very often the most impoverished. Now that may not prove with scientific certainty that Dem policies cause crime and impoverishment, but it is enough for me to consider that those policies may not work in the real world. I would be less likely to feel that way if there were a significant # of Rep run cities near the top of those lists of most crime ridden cities. But rather than providing some actual facts that show that Dems do not almost universally govern in these places, and that not uncommonly Republicans do, you choose to impugn my intelligence?
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 729
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: Fact Free Frame Up

#11

Post by BillyBob66 » Thu Jan 19, 2017 10:40 am

Greg:
Off Topic
it gets you easily and reliably to the political and religious conclusions that you seem to prefer.
Since you took a shot at my religious conclusions, let me say again that I m disappointed you have not tried to prove me wrong in my various threads on the Prophets. I was hoping for some good discussion before I add even more evidence of divine inspiration from other Prophets. You have said you would not comment that is because you knew nothing about the prophets and thus could not comment. But that never stopped you from taking me on in any other Biblical subject, and I doubt you have any more knowledge of the Bible in general than you do the prophets. I rather suspect it is because you realize the great difficulty of arguing that these statements made thousands of years ago, by multiple different writers over a period of 1600 years- about the future, especially about the future of one specific group of people and one specific land, did not turn out to be 100% right on so far. And that also nothing else even approaching this exists among any other of mankind's writings. Nor, in fact, has there ever been an ancient, extinct nation that was reborn a a sovereign nation among the nations of the earth, except for the one that the Bible said would be reborn after being terribly persecuted among the other nations. And thus, since you can observe that this is true, it is pretty hard for you to come up with any other explanation than divine inspiration. I suspect you know that and thus refuse to even enter the fray.

Sorry, I know that is off topic, but you did comment on how my insisting on being wrong accounts for my ability to live with my religious conclusions.
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 529
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Fact Free Frame Up

#12

Post by GregD » Thu Jan 19, 2017 12:22 pm

BillyBob66 wrote:
GregD wrote:
BillyBob66 wrote:Cherry picking? I don't know, SF and SJ seem more like the cherry picking, considering the long list of crime infested- and often poverty ridden- cities that are Dem run.
From your posts it seems that indeed you don't know and are determined to keep it that way. I guess that works for you; it gets you easily and reliably to the political and religious conclusions that you seem to prefer. Thankfully you aren't involved in the design or review of medical research. But then this is all just a joke, right?
I provide you with stats having to do with crime stats that seem to indicate that crime, and maybe also poverty, tend to be far worse in cities run by Dems, with the Dem run cities outnumbering the Rep run cities by maybe 10 or 20 to one. Including two very close neighbors of SF and SJ. This simply in response to your cherry picking of SF/SJ. And your response is that thankfully I am not involved in medical research? So I guess you must be denying the facts that I have provided? They are not true? Is that your claim?
My claim is that your analysis methodology is hopelessly broken.

The poster asserts a direct causal relationship: A causes B. Any counter-example proves the assertion wrong as a matter of logic. That is my point of this thread.

You are now making a new assertion. You are asserting a statistically-based causal relationship: A increases the incidence of B. Your evidence is a correlation. Correlation does not prove causation as a matter of logic. Consequently I have said nothing in regard to the significance of your observations because that isn't relevant at this stage. As a matter of logic, correlation can suggest causation only after controlling for other factors, something which you have made no attempt to do.

I have not done a thorough analysis of your posts on this forum, but my impression (hence my words, "it seems") is that your posts frequently make errors of logic. No big deal about that, everyone is human. However, when those errors are identified by others the errors are not acknowledged by you, and that is a big deal with considerable consequences. Unresolved logic errors leave one incapable of managing confirmation bias. What I expressed is a casual observation qualified with an appropriate level of uncertainty. That is not an ad hominem attack even if it impacts your reputation or feelings.

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 529
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Fact Free Frame Up

#13

Post by GregD » Thu Jan 19, 2017 1:33 pm

BillyBob66 wrote:Greg:
Off Topic
it gets you easily and reliably to the political and religious conclusions that you seem to prefer.
Since you took a shot at my religious conclusions, let me say again that I m disappointed you have not tried to prove me wrong in my various threads on the Prophets. I was hoping for some good discussion before I add even more evidence of divine inspiration from other Prophets. You have said you would not comment that is because you knew nothing about the prophets and thus could not comment. But that never stopped you from taking me on in any other Biblical subject, and I doubt you have any more knowledge of the Bible in general than you do the prophets. I rather suspect it is because you realize the great difficulty of arguing that these statements made thousands of years ago, by multiple different writers over a period of 1600 years- about the future, especially about the future of one specific group of people and one specific land, did not turn out to be 100% right on so far. And that also nothing else even approaching this exists among any other of mankind's writings. Nor, in fact, has there ever been an ancient, extinct nation that was reborn a a sovereign nation among the nations of the earth, except for the one that the Bible said would be reborn after being terribly persecuted among the other nations. And thus, since you can observe that this is true, it is pretty hard for you to come up with any other explanation than divine inspiration. I suspect you know that and thus refuse to even enter the fray.

Sorry, I know that is off topic, but you did comment on how my insisting on being wrong accounts for my ability to live with my religious conclusions.
I took a shot at your analysis process.

There are some people past and present that assert, more or less, the following: Everything in the Bible is correct. As a matter of logic, with this type of assertion, any counter example proves the assertion false. Remember the bits about "the water above"? It is painfully clear that this bit of the Bible has been proven false, first by astronomy and second by space travel. Your attempts to contort the meaning of the text to fit the data is exactly confirmation bias. I come back to this example because it is simple and clean: the reality is completely clear and the text is clear enough to see that the two cannot be reconciled in any reasonable way. So clearly not everything in the Bible is correct. And yet you don't readily concede this inescapable conclusion.

You have asserted that some things in the Bible are true and could not have been known to be true by the authors without divine intervention. As a matter of logic, with this type of assertion, you cannot prove anything without controlling for all other relevant factors. You never attempt to do that, so what you present is not a cogent argument. It is an expression of confirmation bias - you want this assertion to be true. Jesus drank vinegar and died, therefore vinegar killed Jesus. This example has the same logic flaws as your argument. In both cases there is more to the story, but in your case you do not acknowledge that. Further, as a matter of logic, "divine intervention" is an invalid conclusion because that is nominally the most unlikely situation imaginable; although it is simple to imagine it has innumerable unlikely dependencies. The logically invalid conclusion in such cases is "I don't know". I suspect you object, probably passionately, to the statement that "divine intervention" is logically an invalid conclusion. You really don't want that to be true.

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 729
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: Fact Free Frame Up

#14

Post by BillyBob66 » Thu Jan 19, 2017 2:15 pm

Off Topic
You are asserting a statistically-based causal relationship: A increases the incidence of B.
Please supply a quote where I said that, so that no one will accuse you of lying. While waiting for that evidence, I will say what I have asserted this: The vast majority(but not all perhaps) of cities in the USA which have the worst crime rates, and that often also have the worst poverty, also happen to be governed by Democrats. Not uncommonly 100% by Dems. Or, conversely, the vast majority of cities managed predominately by Dems, are also the most violent of populations, by a large amount.

You have not yet provided factual evidence to the contrary. Yet you seem irritated that I have presented these facts. Since you have not presented facts to the contrary, I can only conclude that facts irritate you. Why is that? Or I suppose it might irritate you (with me) that I would dare to present the facts? Why? Do you not care for facts?

Now as to whether electing Dems to government leads to violent and trashed cities(despite the occasional exception to that observation), or whether violent people tend to elect Dems to govern them, a causal relationship, or neither- I really could not say. Apparently you do have a strong opinion that it is neither, or possibly even that electing Dems reduces urban blight and violence. But all I am presenting is an observation that the vast majority of Dem governed cities also happen to be the most violent places a person could have the misfortune to live. Make any conclusions from those observations that you like, if any.

As for the Ad Hominem comments, I find myself tempted to say that you are not a nice person, are totally nuts, that you are blind to facts because the falsehoods you embrace get you easily and reliably to the political and anti-religious conclusions that you seem to prefer. And that your posts frequently make errors of logic. The main reason I am now tempted to respond that way is because I now have your assurance that there is nothing ad hominem about those types of responses.
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 529
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Fact Free Frame Up

#15

Post by GregD » Thu Jan 19, 2017 3:16 pm

BillyBob66 wrote:
Off Topic
You are asserting a statistically-based causal relationship: A increases the incidence of B.
Please supply a quote where I said that, so that no one will accuse you of lying. While waiting for that evidence, I will say what I have asserted this: The vast majority(but not all perhaps) of cities in the USA which have the worst crime rates, and that often also have the worst poverty, also happen to be governed by Democrats. Not uncommonly 100% by Dems. Or, conversely, the vast majority of cities managed predominately by Dems, are also the most violent of populations, by a large amount.

You have not yet provided factual evidence to the contrary. Yet you seem irritated that I have presented these facts. Since you have not presented facts to the contrary, I can only conclude that facts irritate you. Why is that? Or I suppose it might irritate you (with me) that I would dare to present the facts? Why? Do you not care for facts?

Now as to whether electing Dems to government leads to violent and trashed cities(despite the occasional exception to that observation), or whether violent people tend to elect Dems to govern them, a causal relationship, or neither- I really could not say. Apparently you do have a strong opinion that it is neither, or possibly even that electing Dems reduces urban blight and violence. But all I am presenting is an observation that the vast majority of Dem governed cities also happen to be the most violent places a person could have the misfortune to live. Make any conclusions from those observations that you like, if any.

As for the Ad Hominem comments, I find myself tempted to say that you are not a nice person, are totally nuts, that you are blind to facts because the falsehoods you embrace get you easily and reliably to the political and anti-religious conclusions that you seem to prefer. And that your posts frequently make errors of logic. The main reason I am now tempted to respond that way is because I now have your assurance that there is nothing ad hominem about those types of responses.
Indeed, you could not accurately say this is the logical conclusion based on any information you have presented on this thread, but you continue to clearly imply it is true nonetheless. In the event that I misunderstand, that you never did intend to imply this in any of your posts in this thread, then I stand corrected. In that event I should have never responded to any of your posts in this thread at all because they were completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Calling me nuts is not an ad hominem fallacy. That would just be an insult except for the fact that it is true. Saying or suggesting my argument is logically wrong because I am nuts is an ad hominem fallacy. Even Donald Trump occasionally says something that is logically valid even though he seems to have no regard for logic or even reality for that matter. Logically an argument stands or falls on its own merit independent of the source.

That is enough on this for me for a while.

Post Reply

Return to “All the other Political Stuff”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests