A small % of black men ARE the most VIOLENT in American society

Author: TWS1405

Posts

Total: 133
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
-->
@RationalMadman
Meritocracy is not letting someone with far less opportunity and ability to even study in an unstable, poor home compete with a person who had much more going for them and expect to attribute the different outcomes in grades

There was no rich kid in my school that could keep up with me academically. 

Anyway I think the best way to combat this is year round school, since poor people are often from families that don't encourage study so fail to retain a lot of knowledge during the summer that wealthier kids easily retain through tutorship and study. 

There are ways to fight these problems without subconsciously shitting on poor people through some white savior complex 

bronskibeat
bronskibeat's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 63
0
1
4
bronskibeat's avatar
bronskibeat
0
1
4
-->
@Avery
This is not true at all.

Land, McCall and Cohen (1990) found race to be the strongest predictor of crime across several decades (beating poverty) Structural Covariates of Homicide Rates: Are There Any Invariances Across Time and Social Space? | American Journal of Sociology: Vol 95, No 4 (uchicago.edu) 

Unz (2013) found that '%black' was the best predictor of crime throughout many American cities (again, beating poverty) Race and Crime in America, by Ron Unz - The Unz Review 

"The Color of Crime" analysis also found violent crimes correlated with 'black' at 0.81, and only 0.36 with poverty Color-Of-Crime-2016.pdf (amren.com) 

The list goes on...

These sources aren't terribly convincing. The last one is from literal white supremacist organizations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Century_Foundation), and the Unz Review is considered a white nationalist publication. The American Journal of Sociology would be an interesting read but it is over 30 years old and is behind a paywall so alas...if you could quote from it that would be cool.
bronskibeat
bronskibeat's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 63
0
1
4
bronskibeat's avatar
bronskibeat
0
1
4
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
You are misinterpreting what this means. By 3% he means 50% of the 6% of the population black males represent. I believe he is specifically talking about a demographic of 18 to 25 year old males. He isn't saying that all 18-25 year olds commit the crimes only that those crimes predominantly come from that demographic. 

No, I think I understood. He's saying that black males commit over half of overall violent crime, but he got his numbers wrong and said that it would mean 3% of black males are committing those crimes. And while you're right, in that it would mean he would be implying just about half of black men are criminals, he would be wrong in the implication for the reasons I mention in my original post. He also didn't specify an age range in his blog so I'm not sure where you got that from.
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
-->
@bronskibeat
I got it by looking at his citations and not being a retard about how to interpret what he wrote. You are still claiming he is saying that that percentage of black males were criminals when anybody else who has a 3 digit IQ would know he Is saying half of all crime comes from that demographic. Those are 2 wildly different things.

The minority of that demographic commit violent crimes, while half of violent crimes are committed by that demographic. You are conflating the 2 statements in this paragraph to mean the same exact thing
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
Let me explain this to you. He says that 12% of the population commit 50% of the crimes, but he also points out that most of those crimes are from males so we can therefore narrow it to about 6% of the population and then he mentions that you can narrow it down further because most of that group is between the ages of 18-25 to 3% of the population commit 50% of the crimes, and you are somehow stupid enough to think he said that 3% of black males are violent criminals 
Avery
Avery's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 323
1
2
5
Avery's avatar
Avery
1
2
5
-->
@bronskibeat
These sources aren't terribly convincing. The last one is from literal white supremacist organizations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Century_Foundation), and the Unz Review is considered a white nationalist publication. 
Do you know what else isn't convincing?

Ad Hom.

Try addressing the data and arguments.

The American Journal of Sociology would be an interesting read but it is over 30 years old and is behind a paywall so alas...if you could quote from it that would be cool.
If crime was best predicted by race more than 30 years ago, do you think black people have changed much since then? Have blacks evolved into new species? The findings of that particular study were even replicated 12 years ago: An Empirical Assessment of What We Know About Structural Covariates of Homicide Rates: A Return to a Classic 20 Years Later - Patricia L. McCall, Kenneth C. Land, Karen F. Parker, 2010 (sagepub.com)

Anyway, fair enough about the paywall. Here's the full study with all the quotes: mccall_1990_amer_j_soc_922.pdf (ncsu.edu) .
bronskibeat
bronskibeat's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 63
0
1
4
bronskibeat's avatar
bronskibeat
0
1
4
-->
@PREZ-HILTON

Yikes. Let's break this down:

I got it by looking at his citations and not being a retard about how to interpret what he wrote. You are still claiming he is saying that that percentage of black males were criminals when anybody else who has a 3 digit IQ would know he Is saying half of all crime comes from that demographic. Those are 2 wildly different things.
I'm referring specifically to this blog: https://samflynn0514.wixsite.com/americaindenial/post/black-men-not-whites-are-the-tried-and-true-violent-criminals-in-the-usa (if you're looking at another post or link please share it because we're probably not looking at the same thing)

He specifically says this: "A little less than half of the 6% black male population (3%) commit over 50% of the entire nation's #murders and non-negligent manslaughters."

What he is saying is that  6% of the US population is black men (which is correct: The current population of the US is 329.5 million. 6% of 329.5 million is 19.91 million which is how many black men there are in America), he says that a little less than half of that population commits over 50% of the nation's murders and non-negligent manslaughters which would be about 3%. So, if there are 19.91 million black men in America, 3% of that would be 600,000. But there are not 600,000 black men being arrested for murder/non-negligent manslaughter, based on data he shared, there's less than 5,000. So, it's a lot less than 3% of black men who are committing those crimes, it's actually more like 0.03% of black men. It's was either a little math mistake or he's purposely presenting data in a misleading way.

There are three tables: total arrests, arrests under 18, and arrests over 18. Nothing that specifies 18-25.

So, what were you looking at where it says 18-25?

Avery
Avery's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 323
1
2
5
Avery's avatar
Avery
1
2
5
-->
@bronskibeat
I'm referring specifically to this blog: https://samflynn0514.wixsite.com/americaindenial/post/black-men-not-whites-are-the-tried-and-true-violent-criminals-in-the-usa (if you're looking at another post or link please share it because we're probably not looking at the same thing)

He specifically says this: "A little less than half of the 6% black male population (3%) commit over 50% of the entire nation's #murders and non-negligent manslaughters."

What he is saying is that  6% of the US population is black men (which is correct: The current population of the US is 329.5 million. 6% of 329.5 million is 19.91 million which is how many black men there are in America), he says that a little less than half of that population commits over 50% of the nation's murders and non-negligent manslaughters which would be about 3%. So, if there are 19.91 million black men in America, 3% of that would be 600,000. But there are not 600,000 black men being arrested for murder/non-negligent manslaughter, based on data he shared, there's less than 5,000. So, it's a lot less than 3% of black men who are committing those crimes, it's actually more like 0.03% of black men. It's was either a little math mistake or he's purposely presenting data in a misleading way.

There are three tables: total arrests, arrests under 18, and arrests over 18. Nothing that specifies 18-25.

So, what were you looking at where it says 18-25?
All of this is minutia grinding doesn't have a real impact on the discussion. Whether it's the age range 18-25, 18+ or 18-20, whether it's 600,000, a million or 5000, a significant number of black men are committing the most violent crimes in America.

So, when are you going to address that fact? When are you going to contend with the fact that if a violent crime happens in America, the suspect is most likely a black male?
Avery
Avery's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 323
1
2
5
Avery's avatar
Avery
1
2
5
What, specifically is the point you’re trying to make. As we’ve discussed before, I don’t think anyone really denies the underlying facts at hand, though there is certainly many people who may debate cause and attribution.

A main point consider, is that tone, and behaviour often guide how information is interpreted.

For example, to broach a sensitive topic, one may chose to be very aware of his your words and behaviour are taken; and take steps that there is no possibility that behaviour or actions can be misconstrued.

If one were to broach a sensitive topic such as racism; by launching into what seem to be abrasively negative tirades that seek to bombard the reader with negative information about black males. Such overtly negative, abrasive and angry approaches to presenting an argument very much gives the impression that your issue is with the people you critique, and not whatever your actual point actually is.

If your concerned about being labelled a racist - perhaps understanding how this abrasive tone and caustically negative bombarding of data, almost exclusively presented as if to antagonize - can colour other individuals perception of your intent is a good starting point.
I've got no idea why anyone would choose to upvote this. It doesn't come close to addressing the OP's fact and argument.

This is tone-policing designed to distract from the argument.
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Avery
I appreciate your engagement in this thread, as it is finally nice to see someone who understands exactly that which I have been trying to convey without all the nuances of others tunnel vision, one-dimensional thinking, and incorrect interpretation of what was put forth (e.g., the 3% reference being misinterpreted because they didn't comprehend, "A little less than half ..." part of the sentence)In short, everything you've been stating in rebuttal to others has been spot on. Just wish others were so enlightened to the truth instead of being so stubborn in seeing it for what it is. Truth.
Avery
Avery's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 323
1
2
5
Avery's avatar
Avery
1
2
5
-->
@TWS1405
I appreciate your engagement in this thread, as it is finally nice to see someone who understands exactly that which I have been trying to convey without all the nuances of others tunnel vision, one-dimensional thinking, and incorrect interpretation of what was put forth (e.g., the 3% reference being misinterpreted because they didn't comprehend, "A little less than half ..." part of the sentence)In short, everything you've been stating in rebuttal to others has been spot on. Just wish others were so enlightened to the truth instead of being so stubborn in seeing it for what it is. Truth.
Happy to have your back here :)
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
-->
@bronskibeat
3%. So, if there are 19.91 million black men in America, 3% of that would be 600,000
So you think he is literally talking about 3% of black people and not 3% of the overall population. You are too stupid to talk to. 

3% of that would be 600,000. But there are not 600,000 black men being arrested for murder/non-negligent manslaughter, based on data he shared, there's less than 5,000. 

So you really think he's talking about all of that 3% demographic and too stupid to realize that he means 50% comes from that 3% demographic?

Be honest because I don't want to waste my time. Are you really a mentally retarded person who actually thinks you should interpret what is said that way, or are you trolling?

If you are trolling stay, if you are a retard genuinely interpreting what he says that way, than this site really isn't for you. 
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Avery
I've got no idea why anyone would choose to upvote this. It doesn't come close to addressing the OP's fact and argument. 

This is tone-policing designed to distract from the argument.
Actually, take a look at the linked blog post. It comprises many, many individuals claims, it’s unclear as to what the central thesis that he wants to discuss really is, what is the central underlying argument.

It’s impossible to debate with a rant that touches upon multiple topics and makes multiple points, which is what the blog post was; so it’s important to understand out of the mess of claims, accusations and links - what is the actual thing he wants to discuss?

Look at it: how does one actually respond to that mess? 

What it’s doing, effectively, is a form of Gish Gallop. Throw as many things as you possibly can as quickly as can, and be implicitly overwhelming.

That covers what I meant in the first part.

I can mostly disentangle two broad themes of contention in the blog post - firstly that the facts are ignored by liberals - and that people raising the issues are branded racist.

Both of these he’s covered in a covered post, which deteriorated into him calling everyone names: and refusing to respond to the arguments. The general crux of the counter argument was:

a.) The left doesn’t really ignore the data in the way he implied.

b.) Accusations of racism against people raising the concerns is often attributable to the ways it brought up.

For example: if you ask a specific question about a piece of data - that’s probably not going to raise any questions.

If one launches into a campaign of multiple blog posts, angry screeds, multiple threads and posts that universally and angrily fixate solely and excessively on negative aspects of Black America - it is not unreasonable to attribute that level of fixation to racism.

So in this respect - I’m not really policing tone ; I’m not making any suggestions or demands about how he should or shouldn’t present his case ; I’m really answering the question explicitly stated elsewhere, and implied throughout his blog: “why is it people keep calling me racist for this?”

The answer to that question, is specifically rooted in his tone and behaviour.


Avery
Avery's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 323
1
2
5
Avery's avatar
Avery
1
2
5
-->
@Ramshutu
These are all distractions from the topic.

The topic is simple: a small % of black males are the most violent in the USA.

When are you going to address that fact? When are you going to counter the data he provided? At the moment, you have no answer to these questions and have essentially conceded that the OP is correct.
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Avery
These are all distractions from the topic.
They’re actually not really.

The topic is simple: a small % of black males are the most violent in the USA.
Sure. I mean, other than the phrasing - which is a little clunky.

When are you going to address that fact? When are you going to counter the data he provided? At the moment, you have no answer to these questions and have essentially conceded that the OP is correct.
I don’t think anyone really contests the data. There are aspects of uncertainty - some of the data is based on arrests, some of the data is victim identification based: both have implicit assumptions that arrests/conviction/identification=guilt; which aren’t necessarily true. But sure.

But what’s the point of it. There is a higher rate of crime in black males than white males, and?

The post and blog imply there is an and; What is the and?
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Ramshutu
These are all distractions from the topic.
They’re actually not really.
Yes, they are and have been...."really!"


The topic is simple: a small % of black males are the most violent in the USA.
Sure. I mean, other than the phrasing - which is a little clunky.

Ah, so you ADMIT that I am right! So, your rant and ravings were purely an exercise in obnoxious futility then. 


When are you going to address that fact? When are you going to counter the data he provided? At the moment, you have no answer to these questions and have essentially conceded that the OP is correct.
I don’t think anyone really contests the data. There are aspects of uncertainty - some of the data is based on arrests, some of the data is victim identification based: both have implicit assumptions that arrests/conviction/identification=guilt; which aren’t necessarily true. But sure.

But what’s the point of it. There is a higher rate of crime in black males than white males, and?

The post and blog imply there is an and; What is the and?
Strawman.

The "and" is the truth of it all. Truth that the left denies. A point made poignantly clear in my blog and my posts herein. 

And nowhere within the blog or this thread has anyone concluded "guilt," as the intelligent reader understands the arrest and identification factors have absolutely nothing to do with actual conviction rates. 
Avery
Avery's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 323
1
2
5
Avery's avatar
Avery
1
2
5
-->
@Ramshutu
Sure. I mean, other than the phrasing - which is a little clunky.

I don’t think anyone really contests the data. 
There we go. You agree with the thread's OP.

That's all you had to say.
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@TWS1405
Yes, they are and have been...."really!"
He asserts without argument.

Ah, so you ADMIT that I am right! So, your rant and ravings were purely an exercise in obnoxious futility then.
I don't think there is anyone on this forum - that I am aware of - that has ever materially objected to the raw statistics. I certainly haven’t it.

It’s always been the “and”, it’s the intellectual baggage on the point: what is your inference from this data, what are you using it to say - how is the data relevant to a point of contention? What is that point of contention?

As in your other thread - you made a whole ton of additional inferences that were intellectually bankrupt and you couldn’t defend; but presented the proposition almost as if agreeing the data validated the inferences - it doesn’t; and I’m still waiting for your responses in that thread, btw.

Strawman. 
How? Why? Are you going to explain?

It’s not, btw - a straw man is when I misrepresent your position, and attack the misrepresentation.

I’m asking what your position is, and not actually attacking anything.

Please can you take a moment to familiarize yourself with what logical fallacies are how they apply before blurting them out.


The "and" is the truth of it all. Truth that the left denies. A point made poignantly clear in my blog and my posts herein. 
My favourite part of this is you called it a straw man when I suggest you have an “and” tacked on… then tell me that there is indeed an and tacked on.

But the left doesn’t really deny it. The additional intellectual baggage many people tack on to it - that is absolutely denied and argues at length, but the stats aren’t really denied

I asked you before if you have an example of someone prominent on the left that materially questions the data? Let’s start easy - any politicians or left wing journalists?

And nowhere within the blog or this thread has anyone concluded "guilt," as the intelligent reader understands the arrest and identification factors have absolutely nothing to do with actual conviction rates. 
Huh? 

I’m simply suggesting that number of people of a given characteristic arrested, or identified as the criminal  - is only indicative of how often people with that characteristic commit crimes if there is no bias in arrests or identification. I’m not even suggesting the bias is big.
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Avery
There we go. You agree with the thread's OP.

That's all you had to say.
And? 

What’s the point?

If you state trees are green and the demand everyone agrees with you - what’s your point? 

I don’t think anyone materially disagrees with anything - so it seems puzzling you are surprised that people agree with the data - as if it’s some sort of gotcha. 

Unless of course, it’s some kind of gotcha.
Avery
Avery's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 323
1
2
5
Avery's avatar
Avery
1
2
5
-->
@Ramshutu
Some idiots like to argue that a small group of black men aren't the most violent people in America, that's it white men or white people in general. Other idiots like to say it's not true because it's "racist" or "white supremacist".

So, this thread combats idiocy with compelling data.

But since you already agree that this small group of black men are the most violent in America, there's no argument to be had with you.
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Avery
Some idiots like to argue that a small group of black men aren't the most violent people in America.
Who?

that's it white men or white people in general.
Who has said that? In the context of violent crime Data - I mean.

Other idiots like to say it's not true because it's "racist" or "white supremacist".
Who says that?

So, this thread combats idiocy with compelling data.

But since you already agree that this small group of black men are the most violent in America, there's no argument to be had with you.

As I said - I don’t really see many people materially objecting to the data; I see many people objecting to inferences that are drawn from the data - but not the data itself.

Perhaps you’re confusing the two? 

Hence why I asked…

And?

The and is important; and with this type of post, there is always an and.


Avery
Avery's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 323
1
2
5
Avery's avatar
Avery
1
2
5
-->
@Ramshutu
Who?
Some extremist left-wing people I've met irl or debated on other websites.

As I said - I don’t really see many people materially objecting to the data
Well, Lebronski seemed to want to contest it, but that was minutia grinding more than outright denial.

But yeah, no one in this thread seems to be objecting to any significant degree.

The and is important; and with this type of post, there is always an and.
There really is no "and" to this thread.

It was about proving the OP. That's it. If you want to take the fact that a small % of black men are the most violent in America, and use it to make a further argument (or "and" as you keep saying), make another thread and do it there. Stop trying to derail the thread into something that it's not. You've already agreed to the OP -- that's it.
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Avery
Some extremist left-wing people I've met irl or debated on other websites.
Have a link, or a example?

Well, Lebronski seemed to want to contest it, but that was minutia grinding more than outright denial.

But yeah, no one in this thread seems to be objecting to any significant degree.
So no one here? Not even Lebronski?

There really is no "and" to this thread.

It was about proving the OP. That's it. If you want to take the fact that a small % of black men are the most violent in America, and use it to make a further argument (or "and" as you keep saying), make another thread and do it there. Stop trying to derail the thread into something that it's not. You've already agreed to the OP -- that's it.
So let me get this straight.

Ignoring that speaking for the OP (obviously as a prescient mind reader) - and the OP has contradicted you by saying that there is actually an and above (best read what the guy says before speaking for him a FYI)

You’re telling me that the purpose of this post was solely and only to prove the data is correct - because it is so strenuously denied by idiots on the left.

However  no one here denies the data, you can’t cite any examples of anyone denying the data, and you can’t name anyone that’s denied the data?

And yet you’re telling me (or at least the OP is telling) that “the left” denies the data?




 





TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Ramshutu
The left DOES deny the data. 

I have cited source after source where even black people who have said EXACTLY what I have said have been ostracized for stating the truth. A truth that they (the left, democrats) unequivocally deny, blaming all white people for their failures in life. 
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@TWS1405
The left DOES deny the data. 

I have cited source after source where even black people who have said EXACTLY what I have said have been ostracized for stating the truth. A truth that they (the left, democrats) unequivocally deny, blaming all white people for their failures in life. 
Can you share one?
Avery
Avery's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 323
1
2
5
Avery's avatar
Avery
1
2
5
-->
@Ramshutu
I don't understand why you're trying to start an argument about petty, trivial gripes that have nothing to do with the OP's main content, and I don't care to understand. I've got better things to do with my time than start a meta-discussion about the OP.

The fact is that you agree with the OP.

There's no debate to be had with you on the OP's topic.

That's the end of our discussion in this thread.
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Ramshutu
The left DOES deny the data. 

I have cited source after source where even black people who have said EXACTLY what I have said have been ostracized for stating the truth. A truth that they (the left, democrats) unequivocally deny, blaming all white people for their failures in life. 
Can you share one?
Already have across the threads you've participated in with zero substance. 







need more??



TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Ramshutu
@Avery
The fact is that you agree with the OP.

There's no debate to be had with you on the OP's topic.

That's the end of our discussion in this thread.

I wholeheartedly agree. 110%

Therefore, I will not respond to that person herein any further. 
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@TWS1405

This is someone complaining about the left. There is no example of someone on the left denying crime data in here


This is an opinion piece by a conservative. He is just opining about the left - there is no specific example he cites of anyone on the left denying crime data

Same guy - complaining about liberals. No example of anyone on the left denying crime data.

Complaining about media coverage. No example of anyone denying the data.

Same conservative talk radio guy - again no examples of anyone denying the data - just opining.

Again - just claims that BLM is too focused on police - no specific examples of anyone denying the numbers.



So you keep saying that the left denies the crime numbers; and after pressuring you to show examples - the first 6: one would assume the six best and most substantial examples you can come up with…. Have no examples of the left denying the crime numbers…



Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Avery
I don't understand why you're trying to start an argument about petty, trivial gripes that have nothing to do with the OP's main content, and I don't care to understand. I've got better things to do with my time than start a meta-discussion about the OP.

The fact is that you agree with the OP. 

There's no debate to be had with you on the OP's topic.

That's the end of our discussion in this thread.
What you call “petty trivial grips that have nothing to do with the OPs main content”  (The left objecting to data) are also the things you just said were the whole reason the OP made the post in the first place, and what the OP said was the important point he was trying to draw.

Which is it? You can’t have it both ways?

I’m questioning the very reason you give for why this post was necessary, and reasons that the OP gave that he was trying to highlight.

Are you now suggesting I shouldn’t start an argument on the very thing you both suggested the argument is for?