On 12/14/09 21:55, Darren New wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> So you're willing to say that the majority of African Americans are
>> not moderate?
>
> I have no idea what's up with that. People whose fathers weren't allowed

	Nor do I.

	Actually, I found a report that suggested that the numbers were 
overstated, and it was more like 57-59% (or near there) instead of 70%. 
The report suggested that religion was most likely the issue for them as 
well. I just looked at the summary - didn't bother reading it.

>>> Sure, and I see a whole bunch of pictures of people holding up signs,
>>> and I see riots and people burning down buildings, and etc.
>>
>> The majority of them do this?
>
> I didn't say they do. Don't put words in my mouth. I said "have you any
> evidence?"

	And I didn't put words in your mouth.<G>

	It went like this: You asked if I had evidence that the majority were 
moderate. I clarified by saying I used the word moderate in terms of 
violence. You responded with examples of violence. I responded with a 
remark (perhaps a bit sarcastic) suggesting that those examples could 
hardly be used in a discussion of the majority.

>> If you merely want to point out that a big portion of them do this,
>
> No. Why do you assume me asking a question is also me asserting the answer?

	Pre-emptive strike. Bad habit of mine when it comes to Internet 
arguments. It usually goes along the lines of me responding to precisely 
what the person says, with him tweaking what he said a bit so that my 
response is no longer valid, and so I have to respond again to the 
tweaked version. I got tired of this so I just go for pre-emptive 
strikes when I feel that what the person said was not what he meant.<G> 
Usually not a big issue on these newsgroups.

>> I once again invoke African Americans, and point you to their really
>> high over-representation in violent crimes in the US. In 2005, for
>> example, normalized to their proportion of their population, African
>> Americans committed more than 7 times as many homicides as their white
>> counterparts.
>
> I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

	Oh, I was just wondering if you'd say "sure, maybe not the majority, 
but it seems a substantial portion of them", and I was drawing an 
analogy with African Americans. Since the overall topic was about laws 
being passed, I was curious as to what laws targeting African Americans 
would be considered OK if their behavior was bad enough. (Part of the 
unnecessary pre-emptive strike referred to above).

	Reading it all again, it's clear you were just thinking aloud/asking 
questions. Still - it's a public forum, and just because it's a reply to 
you doesn't mean all of it has to be for your eyes. I can throw out 
ideas as well.<G>

>> If you want to have a reasonable conversation, it helps if you don't
>> editorialize by using words like "subhuman", because I'll be happy to
>> counter-obfuscate.
>
> I'm equating it with every other bit of politicized prejudice.

	I must admit I don't understand.

-- 
If you think nobody cares, try missing a couple of payments.

Post a reply to this message