Charleston Shooting-Nine Dead in Church

Started by Bashar Teg30 pages

your wording could suggest that someone can just drop a statistic without a source and same rules apply, not that i believe it was deliberate. its important to state because 85% of statistics quoted on social media have no citation attached.

Originally posted by vansonbee
I don't give a rat ass about Mindset Troll comments, but it also coming from you?

Sorry. I just get a little upset. People have to always question the source of information that they read, or even see. A lot of the stuff that we come across actually happen to be set ups. Look at how America is built. Would so much crime exist if people weren't so impoverished? And take it from there. How was this country built? Do a project on it. When you're done, ask yourself if minorities have decent school systems? Ask yourself if ghettos have community centers that actively help the people that live in them get past the things that upper and middle class townships and societies do? Ask yourself why minorities are often paid 25% less for doing the same job? Ask yourself why American's need to carry guns, when other countries do fine without them? Ask yourself why segregation is so prominent in this country as opposed to many others? Many statistics are built on lies or half truths. Real talk.

Originally posted by Bardock42
In this case one person used statistics to make a claim, and a commentary on it said "I don't believe these statistics, I think they are racist", the commentator would have to prove they are racist perhaps, but implicitly in the assertion is the questioning of the initial claim.

"I don't believe these statistics, I think they are racist," is an assertion; and so the burden of proof lies on commentator.

The uploader did not claim that the statistics were valid. He simply used them. And unless he begins to argue that the statistics are valid, then he won't have to deal with burden of proof.

Originally posted by Stoic
Ask yourself why American's need to carry guns, when other countries do fine without them?
Do Americans actually need to carry guns though?

For example, is there a statistic that shows more gun-carrying Americans saving themselves from an assault or death Vs them carrying a gun and it being the cause of an injury or death that wouldn't have happened if they weren't too cowardly to leave the house unarmed?

Originally posted by Astner
[...]unless he begins to argue that the statistics are valid, then he won't have to deal with burden of proof.

lol, keep trollin

Originally posted by Astner
"I don't believe these statistics, I think they are racist," is an assertion; and so the burden of proof lies on commentator.

The uploader did not claim that the statistics were valid. He simply used them. And unless he begins to argue that the statistics are valid, then he won't have to deal with burden of proof.

Not sure if incompetent or trolling...

nah. you're sure.

Yeah, I just like the meme.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
lol, keep trollin
Originally posted by Bardock42
Not sure if incompetent or trolling...

I'm sorry, but whether you like it or not that's how contemporary rhetoric works.

Originally posted by Astner
"I don't believe these statistics, I think they are racist," is an assertion; and so the burden of proof lies on commentator.

The uploader did not claim that the statistics were valid. He simply used them. And unless he begins to argue that the statistics are valid, then he won't have to deal with burden of proof.

He is implicitly asserting that his argument is valid, so he is asserting that the statistics are also valid, since that is the backbone of his argument.

He'd have to prove the validity of the statistics, but not prove that they aren't racist.

Astner apparently doesn't even Science anymore.

Originally posted by Mindset
He is implicitly asserting that his argument is valid, so he is asserting that the statistics are also valid, since that is the backbone of his argument.

He'd have to prove the validity of the statistics, but not prove that they aren't racist.


No. When he is questioned about the statistics, in which case he'd likely defend their validity because it's essential to his argument; that is when he's faced with the burden of proof. But not before that.

Originally posted by Robtard
Do Americans actually need to carry guns though?

For example, is there a statistic that shows more gun-carrying Americans saving themselves from an assault or death Vs them carrying a gun and it being the cause of an injury or death that wouldn't have happened if they weren't too cowardly to leave the house unarmed?

Listen, I lived in Canada for the majority of my life, and I will tell you, American's don't need guns. The second amendment should be abolished, because it in fact gives people the ability to murder others. Think about just how many unstable people are in the world. Should they be able to easily get their hands on a weapon?

It's difficult for someone that has not seen any different to actually see how bad guns in society are, but that simply means that they have yet to come out of the forest, and look at it from a distance.

Originally posted by Mindset
He is implicitly asserting that his argument is valid, so he is asserting that the statistics are also valid, since that is the backbone of his argument.

He'd have to prove the validity of the statistics, but not prove that they aren't racist.

Surely proving they are valid would include proof they are not racist.

well it would seem i was incorrect. it was incompitence, not trolling.

Originally posted by Stoic
Listen, I lived in Canada for the majority of my life, and I will tell you, American's don't need guns. The second amendment should be abolished, because it in fact gives people the ability to murder others. Think about just how many unstable people are in the world. Should they be able to easily get their hands on a weapon?

It's difficult for someone that has not seen any different to actually see how bad guns in society are, but that simply means that they have yet to come out of the forest, and look at it from a distance.

👆

It's interesting how people who've spent upwards a decade on forum dedicated to debates aren't familiar with contemporary rethoric.

Of course, these are the same people who will reply names of logical fallacies to posts that didn't commit said fallacies.

Originally posted by Astner
It's interesting how people who've spent upwards a decade on forum dedicated to debates aren't familiar with contemporary rethoric.

Of course, these are the same people who will reply names of logical fallacies to posts that didn't commit said fallacies.

rhetoric

Originally posted by Bardock42
rhetoric

I know.
Originally posted by Astner
rhetoric

You're welcome, no problem.