Why are so many resilient to fact-based truth regarding black criminality?

Author: TWS1405 ,

Posts

Total: 374
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 275
2
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
2
4
7
--> @Ramshutu
Added08.04.22 09:35PM
-->@TWS1405
Wow...one superfluous retort after another whining about semantics and delivery but never addressing the fact-based data in and of itself.
“nuh-uh”  Assertion - also false. If you take a look at my posts - I actually go through and detail all the “fact based data”

Given that you are now resorting to name calling and  bald assertions - I will work under the assumption that you have capitulated on the entire argument.
Not false, fact.  You're all about my delivery and nothing about the facts given. 

There was no name-calling in that statement above. Adjectives do NOT = nouns. 

And no, I have capitulated to nothing of the sort. (Delusions of graduer on your part)


Simple question: do a tiny, small % of black males in America commit over 50% of the entire nation's homicides/murders and non-negligent manslaughters or not?

Obvious answer: yes. 

Do blacks kill 2x as many whites every year, yes or no?

Obvious answer: yes. 

Since a tiny, small % of black makes are committing more violent crimes than whites, both intraracially and interracially.

Yes - but no one js denying this. I’m not denying it. Leftists aren’t denying it. Democrats aren’t denying it.
Yes, you are. Yes, they are. Yes, they most certainly are. And in doing so it only perpetuates the problem.


and the entirety of the LEFT, DEMOCRATS and DENIALIST BLACKS are unwilling to accept this fact.

I’m a leftist - I accept it. I know of no democrat or leftist that doesn’t accept it. This is a false premise.
Then you clearly do not know very many leftists or democrats then. Denial = acceptance. And they (leftists and democrats) are full of denial when it comes to level of black criminality among so few blacks that surpasses all races. If it were a contest, those black males doing all that killing would win every year.  Meanwhile you people on the left keep harping on about white supremacy, white cis-male domestic terrorists, white privilege, police brutality, yadda yadda yadda. 


however you slice and dice it (attributable to, linked to, fact based criminological data, etc.)... is my point. 

But it’s a false point. No one rejects the data - this is literally the first part of my response to you. Are you unable to actually my address why this premise is wrong - or are you just going to repeat the same faulty claims?

No, it is not. Yes, they do reject the data. As soon as I or anyone like-minded (to include black conservatives) presents that data, out come the derogatory labels written on the palm of the hand raised to silence that information. 

As a result, when these fact based truths are mentioned, even lightly, you get reported by the leftist denialists and then banned from the social media platforms for "discrimination" via "hate speech and symbols." 

End of story. 

Actually, as I have argued and presented in the posts above: the issue isn’t that your describing data - it’s that you’re making value statements based on it, such as:

There are no historical references to whites bitching and moaning about their enslavement.

They're not born immoral, but they are certainly taught to be.

It is a foregone conclusion that black communities with high crime rates know exactly what is happening, but they are just too chicken sh!t to do anything about it.

lack of a proper upbringing by the single parent, lack of discipline, and lack of the sense and importance of taking personal responsibility and accountability for their choices and actions. 

They need to learn discipline, respect, and the importance of taking personal responsibility and accountability for their choices and actions - and understand the consequences of any bad choices and actions they make. 

Before civil rights black Americans had pride, self-respect, and determination to succeed in America

Blacks wanted to succeed then, but after civil rights, everything changed

Black culture is the problem that fuels crime, abuse, rape, murder, poor parenting, drug use, gangs, so on and so forth

More like mass paranoia and psychosis of the victimhood mentality hammered into their heads generation after generation is the true inherent problem. 

In fact, blacks in the Caribbean and South America do not act/behave as black American’s do precisely because they do not have the level of freedoms and luxuries that blacks in America have

The difference is the culture. Any measure of success among those in the black community was frowned upon

What is are the low standards some people have for themselves and others that makes the choice for them easier to consume illegal drugs.

All of these employ either explicit or implicit negative value statements about blacks - it’s value statements that change “facts” to “racism”
None of the statements I made are factually inaccurate. None of them. None. As such, none of them amount to racism. Truth is NOT racism. 



In addition, you’re frequently super sloppy in your language, either Freudian, or accidental when you say stuff like: 

Why are so many resilient to fact-based truth regarding black criminality?

And when I present the data that proves them wrong, they refuse to accept such data could be attributable to blacks in America,

The data across all interrelated relative areas, clearly demonstrate black males are far more of a problem for America than what the left claims.

Where you cast your net fat too widely to present blacks or black males as the problem. If your language often applies to blacks in general - why is it unreasonable to presume you’re talking about blacks  in general?
Semantics argument. 



Finally, and probably more relevant to the conversation - you seem utterly and totally fixated with bombarding everyone, non stop, constantly, repeatedly, without cease - solely negative statistics about a given race - you are uninterested in context, uninterested in attribution, explanation, and discussion or causes or biases or prejudice in the data. 
The topic or issue is correcting the false narrative put out by the left, that white supremacy is to blame for everything when it is not. The criminological data proves that leftist narrative patently false. Same goes for their "non-stop, constantly, repeatedly, without cease" false claims of police brutality as well.  So, to combat one view another has to be presented. Truth. And clearly you, like all on the left, hate the truth. 


You are, unabashedly, systematically, and apparently indefatigably dedicated - not to discussion, or intellectual debate, or exploration of data - but to bombard everyone with your thoughts about how big a problem black crime statistics, black culture, and blacks not taking responsibility  is.
I am always up for a spirited debate/discussion, but when people come out of the gates personally attacking me and/or whining about the method of delivery, derailing the intended debate/discussion, then yeah, I give it right back tit for tat. 

Given the state of affairs that about 20% of the black population finds themselves in generation after generation since the beginning of the 70s, yeah, it is a big problem for blacks, and I would like to see a turnaround of that.  Not only for them, but for all. 

Why on gods green earth could anyone imagine that such a single and dedicated focus on yelling at everyone about how bad all this crime and social data is for black people - would not come away with the sense that you probably didn’t have a great opinion of black people.
1 dimensional thinking on their part. 


That behaviour is instructive - the lack of your willingness to explore or navigate the data, is also instructive; that your posts are solely about trying to convey negative data about blacks without caveat or discussion - is absolutely instructive.
You sound like a broken record one time too many. You cannot say with any certainty that I am unwilling to do anything or that I have not already. I have. I have studied the issue for more than two decades. I know what the problem is, some of which I have already stated. But not all of it. 


That’s almost certainly what you were banned, and given all the issues above, which I have explained at length and you have mostly dismissed - the specific conclusion that this behaviour, and these statements are racist - is not a wholly unreasonable one.
None of the statements are racist. When people like you hate the truth cause the truth sounds like hate to you, you immediately call it racist. 



PS. I am NOT going to repeat myself proving you wrong, ove rand over again.
But you’re not. As I’ve explained, the bulk of your responses are poorly reasoned “nuh-uh”, in your last response on your links you appeared to give up all pretext of argument and simply insisted I was wrong without explanation on almost every link.


Ah, there's that delusion of grandeur again. 
Only "nuh-uh" banality here is all on you. 



As shown; the remainder of your posts are poorly thought out, inconsistent with the data or just plain illogical.
Easy to claim, harder to prove. Nothing I've said has been inconsistent with the data since it is based specifically off the data. 
Truth is not illogical. Genius. *facepalm*



This is clearly an issue of you capitulating - unable to answer any of the points, and are going through this weird denial phase where you pretend nothing I’ve said actually exists.

Perhaps if you spent more time explaining why I’m wrong rather than telling me you have 400 books, you would fare better. 
Nope. Only in your fictional world is it capitulating. You've made no points worth answering (points are not answered, questions are answered). 

I've already explained why you are wrong. 

You're bitching about delivery and ignoring the truth of it all. 
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 275
2
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
2
4
7
--> @oromagi
citing one link does not equal "promoting" anything. 
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 108
Posts: 7,562
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
--> @TWS1405
-->@oromagi
citing one link does not equal "promoting" anything. 
The legitimate debaters on this site stand by the sources they link to.   If the reliability of their sources is challenged, they either present countervailing evidence of reliability or retract the source as unreliable.

Are you standing by Dr. Clyde Winters as a reliable source of anthropological evidence on Sumer or do you now regret your hasty propagation of an obvious  self-publishin' bullshitter?

Shall we think of you as one of those guys who just believes the first thing on google that reinforces his bias or somebody who looks into the quality of data before distributing that data as fact?
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 275
2
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
2
4
7
--> @oromagi
Well, I am new here. I do not know all your rules and/or expectations. Also, this is the forum and not a formal debate. 
It was a link with info that established the opposite of what another was claiming. 

You also took it to another level by claiming I was promoting him, personally, and demanded more than what was necessary (ie., red herring fallacy). That's on you. Not me. 

I regret nothing. Never have, never will.

You definitely come off as a sanctimonious snob. 
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 2,404
3
3
8
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
8
--> @Dr.Franklin
Then this conversation is over. Because I never made an original claim or assumed the BOP. In fact, the post that YOU quote of me was in response to another user making a claim. So I never had the BOP in this entire thread until you showed up and asked ME to make a claim, disregarding the context of your post.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
C'mon Dr.Franklin--it's me, homie. Dawg. How you gon' try to play a brotha?

You are exactly correct. The simple reason is that liberals do not believe in collective differences between people. Some groups are more violent, some are faster, some are smarter, etc. For example, whites will dominate in strongmen competitions, but will never see the light of day in long-distance running. East Asians dominate in math, Germans are good at Physics, Northern + Eastern Europeans are good with computers and video games, Ireland produces poets, and Britain produces great novelists and inventors. (America produces nothing, sadly) Everybody naturally knows this, and can recognize these differences between people. But, liberals only look at people through an individualist lens(blank slate). They think everyone is truly unique and awesome. Nope, you are not special, and your life is largely determined by your genes. It's why poverty doesn't have an effect on black violence. The richest blacks commit more crime than the poorest whites.
That was your first post--one of your first "original" claims.

If geography determines genes than it makes sense why Europeans are the way they are. They are generally more individualistic because they had to survive the brutal ice age, and they dominated geopolitics because they lived through harsh conditions. Blacks never had to invent or develop a great civilization because if they wanted to survive, they just hunted, and really couldn't grow much food. Jews didn't have a homeland until '48 because their ancestry is of Cain and Esau, which the Bible described them as nomads. Plus, most jews are descended from khazaria, a nomad kingdom.

So yeah, Ireland has a knack for poetry because they were isolated and became spiritual in peace(I theorize that), and also they love alcohol
This was your second post, where you posted more "original claims."

3RU7AL Post #184:
--> @Dr.Franklin
It's why poverty doesn't have an effect on black violence. The richest blacks commit more crime than the poorest whites.
The countries with the ten highest crime rates, expressed in per 100,000 people, globally are:

  1. Venezuela (83.76)
  2. Papua New Guinea (80.79)
  3. South Africa (76.86)
  4. Afghanistan (76.31)
  5. Honduras (74.54)
  6. Trinidad and Tobago (71.63)
  7. Guyana (68.74)
  8. El Salvador (67.79)
  9. Brazil (67.49)
  10. Jamaica (67.42)
It's here where 3RU7AL responds, the one you accuse of being the original claimant.

You two proceed to discuss, even to a point where you concede that those presumably responsible for the high Venezuelan crime rates weren't so-called "black" either. And then 3RU7AL responds to this:

3RU7AL Post #211:
--> @Dr.Franklin
Blacks never had to invent or develop a great civilization
In fact, there was a time when Egypt's rulers were black, hailing from the kingdom of Kush, located in modern-day Sudan and Upper Egypt, according to KPBS. Around 750 BC they conquered Egypt, enthroned their own pharaohs and ruled Egypt for nearly a century, in what would be known as the Nubian Dynasty, or Egypt's 25th Dynasty. [**]

The richest man in history,

Mansa Musa (Musa I of Mali) was the king of the ancient empire of Mali in West Africa. [**]

not to mention,

Many scholars have concluded that the founders of the first Mesopotamian civilization were Black Sumerians. Mesopotamia was the Biblical land of Shinar (Sumer), which sprung up around 3000 B.C. After deciphering the cuneiform script and researching ancient Mesopotamia for many years Henry Rawlinson (1810-1895) discovered that the founders of the civilization were of Kushite (Cushite) origin. [**]
Note that 3RU7AL "responds" not "instigates" with a counterargument, which has references.

You then responded with this:

1.The nubians came much after the original Egyptians, so they piggy-backed off of non-black innovation. They pulled a South Africa where blacks piggy-backed off of white innovation.

2.The Mali Empire was in direct contact with the outside world and so that is how they developed. Again sub-Saharan advanced societies never develop on their own, instead it took a massive volume of trade for the Mali Empire to grow. That and Ethiopia are the two only exceptions in ALL of sub-Saharan history.

3.That is preposterous. Your source is a literal "we wuz kangs" blog that tries to claim that minoan greece and ancient china was a black civilization. LMAO

A few statements later, I entered the fray with this:

Athias Post #247:
--> @Dr.Franklin
1.The nubians came much after the original Egyptians, so they piggy-backed off of non-black innovation. They pulled a South Africa where blacks piggy-backed off of white innovation.

2.The Mali Empire was in direct contact with the outside world and so that is how they developed. Again sub-Saharan advanced societies never develop on their own, instead it took a massive volume of trade for the Mali Empire to grow. That and Ethiopia are the two only exceptions in ALL of sub-Saharan history.
Receipts?

3.That is preposterous. Your source is a literal "we wuz kangs" blog that tries to claim that minoan greece and ancient china was a black civilization. LMAO
Criticizing the source, but not the point.
More original claims without reference or substantiation, and now, here we are.

So, no, Dr. Franklin. YOU'RE NOT GOING TO PASS OFF A LIE that 3RU7AL was the instigator, when it was in fact you who proposed claims which conjured our responses. YOU DO NOT GET TO DETERMINE WHETHER YOU ASSUME A BURDEN OF PROOF; IT IS THE CLAIM ITSELF THAT DETERMINES THE BURDEN OF PROOF.

If you intend to end this conversation, here, that's all well and good. Perhaps in the future, you may consider not underestimating the faculties of those whom you intend to engage in discussion and express some courtesy and decorum.





Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,225
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
--> @3RU7AL
maybe
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 108
Posts: 7,562
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
--> @TWS1405
-->@oromagi
Well, I am new here. I do not know all your rules and/or expectations.   Also, this is the forum and not a formal debate. 
It was a link with info that established the opposite of what another was claiming. 
  • More expectations than rules.  This is isn't facebook and twitter:  we're trying to maintain some semblance of intellectual integrity here.
  • Isn't this the same dude who bragged in POST#53 of this same forum topic:
    • "I am an excellent researcher/investigator. I know my facts. And I never post anything anywhere that I cannot back up with facts. I do NOT cherry pick data. I do not draw broad conclusions either. " and
      • Doesn't you shitposting Dr. "Black Atlantis" effectively disprove these earlier claims of yours?

You also took it to another level by claiming I was promoting him, personally, and demanded more than what was necessary (ie., red herring fallacy). That's on you. Not me. 
  • PROMOTION is defined as "Dissemination of information in order to increase its popularity."  Linking to anything as a source of information is PROMOTION by the dictionary definition.  The fact that you don't know what that word means is on you, not me.
I regret nothing. Never have, never will.
  • false
  • WIKIPEDIA:
    • REMORSE is a distressing emotion experienced by an individual who regrets actions which they have done in the past.....  A person who is incapable of feeling remorse is often diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder, as characterized in the DSM IV-TR. 
You definitely come off as a sanctimonious snob. 
  • SANCTIMONIOUS is "Making a show of being better than others"
    • Anybody who has ever read my profile page knows that I concede sanctimoniousness
  • a SNOB is "one who blatantly imitates, fawningly admires, or vulgarly seeks association with those regarded as social superiors"
    • A good example of snobbery is "All I have plainly tried to do is dispel the fake narrative that whites and cops are the problem in society, not blacks (or other persons of color). " or
    • "Black culture is the problem that fuels crime, abuse, rape, murder, poor parenting, drug use, gangs, so on and so forth."


TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 275
2
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
2
4
7
--> @oromagi
Yup, you are not only a sanctimonious snob...

noun
  1. One who despises, ignores, or is patronizing to those he or she considers inferior.
  2. One who is convinced of his or her superiority in matters of taste or intellect.
  3. A convulsive sob.
You also display classic narcissistic personality disorder traits. 

Still no regret, remorse or anything else you will falsely ascribe. 

Truth does NOT equal snobbery. What I said - in context - about the small segment of black males that cause so much violence in this country is factually accurate. 

I do not know where you are finding your definitions, but they are the wrong meanings of the terms used in the context in which they were given.

promotion
noun
  1. The act of promoting someone to a higher job, grade, or rank, or the fact of being so promoted.
Still did not promote the man with whom you clearly have a hardon for. 


Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,566
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
--> @TWS1405
Not false, fact.  You're all about my delivery and nothing about the facts given. 

There was no name-calling in that statement above. Adjectives do NOT = nouns. 

And no, I have capitulated to nothing of the sort. (Delusions of graduer on your part)

If you feel my argument is “all about delivery”, and not “the facts given”, please by all means go through posts #307-312 above and specify how and why you have drawn this conclusion - I would like you spend extra attention in posts #310-#312 - because here I specifically go through and contest your conclusions based on facts and demonstrate how your conclusions are unsupported - or refuted by the data. Also, in #307-309 while I talk a little about language and tone; I would like you to explain why you feel taking about the logical issues and poorly reasoned arguments in your posts is “all about your delivery.

Telling me that I’m just so gosh darn wrong - doesn’t make me wrong.

Yes, you are [denying the data]. Yes, they are. Yes, they most certainly are. And in doing so it only perpetuates the problem.

Where?

Please quote the part of my post  - any of my posts - where I have “denied the data”. Be specific.

Then you clearly do not know very many leftists or democrats then. Denial = acceptance

Quote one. Find me a blue tick leftist on Twitter or instagram, left wing journalist in any news or magazine organization with an about page that shows ownership, or any left wing politician or activists for which there is a wiki page, and quote to me where they explicitly “deny the data” that you are listing here. 

Not “provide an explanation for” not “provide context to” not “work through underlying causes and reasons for it” - a quote where the data is explicitly denied.

And they (leftists and democrats) are full of denial … yadda yadda yadda. 

This is just an opinionated rant - there is no argument for me to respond to.

As soon as I or anyone like-minded (to include black conservatives) presents that data, out come the derogatory labels written on the palm of the hand raised to silence that information.

And yet - as shown, those conclusions in this case aren’t wholly unreasonable.

None of the statements I made are factually inaccurate. Truth is NOT racism. 

This is conclusion is absolutely untrue - I explained in detail why in post: #307 -by all means quote the argument and explain how and why my reasoning is wrong.

Repeating a claim after it’s been debunked, with no attempt to justify it is a bit intellectually dishonest.


Some of the statements such as “whites not whining about slavery”, contain a factual point - but imply value. The fact is a fact - the value you insert into those statements is not. (Again see posts above)

So these statements which imply value can clearly be interpreted as racist as a result (see #307 for more detail.

A bunch - are not based on any specific data; and is purely your opinion that you are asserting is fact. I concentrated on pride - which thus far (given posts #315) you still haven’t provided data for and tried to change the subject.

By all means, If you disagree - by all means explain why that interpretation is not correct. Simply denying everything, is not intellectually honest.

[that you have regularly conflated “black people” with “a specific limited set of the black population” is a ] Semantics argument. 

As pointed out, a post including language that admonishes an entire race (which you did) sounds racist even if in error. It is not unreasonable for people to conclude you are a racist, when you frequently make terminological errors that make the things you say sound racist.

By all means feel free to explain why that logic is invalid - why you feel it’s semantics, and what about semantics makes it false - saying it is so, doesn’t make it so

The topic or issue is correcting the false narrative put out by the left…

So you said a bunch of stuff here admonishing me telling me they’re wrong - re-iterating how right you are, that people have 1 dimensional thinking etc, etc - you haven’t actually addressed the point at all:

The underlying point is that if someone blustered into a thread and was solely fixated on constantly posting negative statistics about Volvos, admonishing people for not acknowledging all the negative statistics about Volvos, and abrasively posting their unvarnished opinion about how some of the new models are terrible shitty cars - with the odd choice of initial thread, and sole apparent topic of interest being how no one accepts your negative Volvo fact based data - it would not be unreasonable for someone viewing this behaviour to conclude you have an issue with Volvos.

Perhaps you can explain - given my list of your behaviour, and this explanation - why you feel it is unreasonable for individuals to attribute this abrasive, negative behaviour to racism in the same way?

Ah, there's that delusion of grandeur again. 
Only "nuh-uh" banality here is all on you. 

“Nuh-uh” indicates a case where you say in wrong, but provide no explanation - as you have done exclusively in this post . Feel free to find an example of me claiming “nuh-uh” on a point where you provided a justification of your opinion.

Easy to claim, harder to prove. Nothing I've said has been inconsistent with the data since it is based specifically off the data. 

In 311,312 and 313 I go out of my way to explicitly detail all the aspects of your opinions that are refuted by data - I provided the data you asked for, backed up everything with sources - and comprehensively demolished multiple attributions you made. This includes data, interpretation, and pointing out logical errors you make in your attribution.

If you don’t agree with that assessment, and you take issue with my argument and logic, by all means feel free to explain exactly what part of my argument is wrong - and why. 

Without that, your response is just a meaningless denial

Nope. Only in your fictional world is it capitulating. 

When someone posts a detailed rebuttal to every point raised that spans multiple posts  - and the other side is unable to address the claims in any way shape or form; and whose only response is to either a) repeat the debunked claims or b.) simply repeating how wrong someone is - it clearly demonstrates that person is unable to deal with the points raised.

That no attempt is made at all to address the point, and this reply descends into just repeating assertions that the other is wrong  - renders the lack of response a capitulation.

You've made no points worth answering (points are not answered, questions are answered). 
How can the readers here tell that these points aren’t worth answering - as opposed to you being unable to answer them, and then lying that the points are not worth answering because you know how bad it looks not answering a detailed argument?


You're bitching about delivery and ignoring the truth of it all. 
please cite one example of a truth you feel I have e “ignored”

I've already explained why you are wrong. 

By all means, feel free to quote the part of your posts where you feel you have addressed a point of contention - I will be happy to draw your attention to a post that explains why your response is inadequate or illogical.

Otherwise, again, your reply is merely a base assertion without merit.
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 108
Posts: 7,562
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
--> @TWS1405
OK, so you're reduced  to "I'm rubber, you're glue"  great.


Why is TWS1405  so resilient [sic] to fact-based truth regarding  his false claims that he's an  "an excellent researcher/investigator?"






Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,566
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
--> @oromagi
It appears his ability to defend his point of view is particularly superficial given his replies.

Also, the idea that you have narcissistic personality disorder is clearly false.

We all know it’s borderline histrionic personality disorder all day long.
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 108
Posts: 7,562
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
--> @Ramshutu
and here I was thinking I was just a crank
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 413
Posts: 14,975
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
--> @TWS1405
You definitely come off as a sanctimonious snob. 
I like neither you nor Oromagi but this is the fact you have Oromagi pinned down to a T so fast tells me you are intelligent even if you are a prick.

You are the same as Oromagi, you just don't see it yet, the thing you are both particularly sanctimonious about is your so-called 'needle in a haystack honesty' that neither of you actually realises is both more normal and irrelevant to any situation you both have brought it up in.

That said, I will say you are more honest than he is. Oromagi is only as honest as his self-deception lets him be. You seem to be an honest prick who wants a political realm that enables and unleashes the prick within us all.
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 275
2
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
2
4
7
--> @RationalMadman
I will accept and take your constructive criticism of myself as a compliment. 
And I agree with your knowledgeable assessment of Oromagi. Obviously. 
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 275
2
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
2
4
7
--> @oromagi
-->@TWS1405
OK, so you're reduced  to (sic) "I'm rubber, you're glue"  great. (sic)
Nope. I leave such sophomoric banality to those like you.

Why is TWS1405  so (sic) resilient [sic] to fact-based truth regarding  his (sic) false claims that he's an  (sic) "an excellent researcher/investigator?"
When you take the matter out of context it is false. Within the context of the discussion, it is true. 

Your personal hardon for those you dislike and are cited is not my problem, that's your personal problem. 
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 12,173
3
4
8
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
8
--> @TWS1405
Well, I am new here. I do not know all your rules and/or expectations.
don't let oro pretend they are the one true arbiter of debateart culture
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 108
Posts: 7,562
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
--> @3RU7AL @TWS1405
don't let oro pretend they are the one true arbiter of debateart culture
Definitely not.

TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 275
2
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
2
4
7
--> @oromagi
Definitely not.

Now that I can agree with you on..."definitely not" you are. 

A lot of your debate tactics are sophomoric. 

One day, with the right debate topic, I will take you on. 

oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 108
Posts: 7,562
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
--> @TWS1405
A lot of your debate tactics are sophomoric. 
Agreed, in fact I've never studied or participated in any kind of formal debating.  I'm just sort of winging it.

Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,566
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
--> @TWS1405
Now that I can agree with you on..."definitely not" you are. 

A lot of your debate tactics are sophomoric. 

One day, with the right debate topic, I will take you on. 

Sophomoric as they may be - I have yet to see Oromagi talk about  how good he is at debating, research, linking, considering etc - in a discussion as an argument. I have also never heard him tell someone they are wrong, incorrect or mistaken - without also providing an explanation of why at the same time.

Two key behaviours that you would be best served to copy.
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 275
2
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
2
4
7
--> @Ramshutu
Never claimed to be good, great or awesome at debating. Strawman.

I am good at researching the topic that I initiate and engage in, not those I did not initiate. I use the shotgun effect. 

Anyone can link, doesn't take any measure of expertise you clown. 

Oh, he has said another is incorrect without proving it. That's for sure. 

You need to check your arrogance and sanctimonious narcist banality at the door, Mr. Dunning Kruger. 
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,566
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
--> @TWS1405
Never claimed to be good, great or awesome at debating. Strawman.
Did I say you did? For it to be a strawman, I have to misrepresent your position - I didn’t even mention your position

I am good at researching the topic that I initiate and engage in, not those I did not initiate. I use the shotgun effect. 
No you’re not.

Cases in point:

You cited data on out of wedlock births that contained only partial data - when there was easily searchable complete data easily available.

You claimed to have data supporting your contention on pride and determination - but posted one link that partially showed the opposite, followed by four more on unrelated topics - that pretty blatantly espoused the validity of systemic racism.

You made claims about the spike out of wedlock births causing mass incarceration - despite happening after; disputed the occurrence of the peak - which occurred well after you suggested; disputed that wedlock births are at the lowest ever a which they are.

You also disputed claims on when mass incarceration happened, disputed the existence of data on skews in the criminal Justice statistics - which I cited specifically; and disputes the validity of the claim that various crime rates have fallen massively.

The evidence of your research prowess is clearly refuted by your consistent inability to Google facts and parameters given to you, citing poor or contradictory sources, and having a rather poor command of the facts.


Anyone can link, doesn't take any measure of expertise you clown. 
Of course - expertise is demonstrated by an ability to disentangle statistics, explain why their position is wrong, what logical errors they are making; to the point the other person is unable to respond.

Oh, he has said another is incorrect without proving it. That's for sure. 
Where?

You need to check your arrogance and sanctimonious narcist banality at the door, Mr. Dunning Kruger. 
This sounds like you’re trying out madlibs.



TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 275
2
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
2
4
7
--> @Ramshutu
Never claimed to be good, great or awesome at debating. Strawman.
Did I say you did? For it to be a strawman, I have to misrepresent your position - I didn’t even mention your position

Yeah, you did. It was implicitly implied. 

"I have yet to see Oromagi talk about  how good he is at debating, research, linking, considering etc -"


You are just being your usual narcissistic sanctimonious denialist self. 

Go away. You're just continuing to make a fool of yourself. 
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,566
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
Yeah, you did. It was implicitly implied. 
How does one imply anything other than implicitly?

"I have yet to see Oromagi talk about  how good he is at debating, research, linking, considering etc -"
You said straw man. A straw man is when I take your position, modify it. And attack the modification. I’m clearly doing none of those things here.

I point this out, as it indicates that you clearly don't understand what a straw man is; despite you asserting it (obviously without any explanation) multiple times.


However - in your response; it appears you have conceded that you have broadly done all the other things, and as I summarized in my last post - and highlighted in 307-312 - you’re clearly a terrible researcher with little command of the facts.

You are just being your usual narcissistic sanctimonious denialist self. 

Go away. You're just continuing to make a fool of yourself. 
How exactly, do you feel I’m making a fool of myself?

Each time I post, I explain the detail of why you’re wrong, I link back to points you ignore, demonstrate the logical issues in what you say, and with every post you demonstrate that you have no real answer to anything I say.

For example - I pointed out in my last post at how you are clearly a terrible researcher, and point out all the elements of research you got wholly wrong and, as yet, have not been able to defend - everyone is able to see that you completely ignored it before - and completely ignored it again.

I’m more than happy to keep going through and pointing out all the data you’re ignoring, how you’re argument is refuted by facts - as I showed in post 307-312 above. 

If you feel that providing a list of excuses of why you don't want to respond to detail data that proves your argument wholly wrong makes me look like a fool - I am more than happy not to correct you

TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 275
2
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
2
4
7
--> @Ramshutu
**YAWN**