Obama Struggles To Limit Damage In Pastor Row As WHITE VOTERS Slip Away

[CockySOB]

It is simply a parabell. It demonstrates how conclusions are made from observation.

Sorry, but it doesn't.

Again, my comment above fits here too. I never claimed that I could prove anything. I merely stated my belief in conjunction with the facts illustrating the high level of violent incidents among blacks compared to other races.

The problem again, is linkage. You claim the linkage is "by nature," correct? Are you claiming that nature is a genetic characteristic? If so, then you need to provide the linkage between blacks having a specific genetic marker which specifically is linked to violent behavior. All you have is statistics which correlate to a non-linked genetic factor and you are assuming there is a causal relationship. Without proof of causality, all you have is an unproven hypothesis which you are welcome to embrace as opinion. But that opinion is based on a logical fallacy.

I'm certain you're familiar with the saying, "statistics, statistics, and damned lies." This would be an example of such a saying. The correlation may exist, but unless causality can be proven, all you have is an incidental correlation.

BTW, a lot of people fall into the trap of thinking correlation proves causality. Just look at the "global warming" crowd. Statistics, statistics and damned lies indeed!

[Pale Rider]

Sorry, but it doesn't.

Well, yeah, it does.

The problem again, is linkage. You claim the linkage is "by nature," correct? Are you claiming that nature is a genetic characteristic? If so, then you need to provide the linkage between blacks having a specific genetic marker which specifically is linked to violent behavior. All you have is statistics which correlate to a non-linked genetic factor and you are assuming there is a causal relationship. Without proof of causality, all you have is an unproven hypothesis which you are welcome to embrace as opinion. But that opinion is based on a logical fallacy.

I'm certain you're familiar with the saying, "statistics, statistics, and damned lies." This would be an example of such a saying. The correlation may exist, but unless causality can be proven, all you have is an incidental correlation.

BTW, a lot of people fall into the trap of thinking correlation proves causality. Just look at the "global warming" crowd. Statistics, statistics and damned lies indeed!

You're waaaaaaaay beyond what's going on here bud. You're taking a one step process and trying to compare it to a Mars landing. It's far more simple than what you're trying to make it out as. Hear me.... I said... I never claimed I could prove anything.... I'm merely stating my beliefs in accordance with what the facts bear out. Now there's nothing more scientific to it than that. That's it. Over. Done.

Here's another example maybe you'll understand. Say you're daughter starts to act up, starts smoking pot, starts talking back, but she's been hanging out with a whole new crowd of kids. Would you conclude that her hanging out with this new crowd had something to do with her new behavior if you knew these kids smoked pot and got in trouble? You bet you would. You'd believe it sure as shootin', and you'd forbid her to see these kids anymore. My beliefs are derived by the same means.

[CockySOB]

You're waaaaaaaay beyond what's going on here bud. You're taking a one step process and trying to compare it to a Mars landing. It's far more simple than what you're trying to make it out as. Hear me.... I said... I never claimed I could prove anything.... I'm merely stating my beliefs in accordance with what the facts bear out. Now there's nothing more scientific to it than that. That's it. Over. Done.

Over-simplification (or false generalization) is also a logical fallacy. So no, I'm pointing out the logical construction of a compound proposition which can be shown to be true. Your statements for the most part, are ill-formed statements of opinion, nothing more. That's it. Over. Done. Class dismissed.

Here's another example maybe you'll understand. Say you're daughter starts to act up, starts smoking pot, starts talking back, but she's been hanging out with a whole new crowd of kids. Would you conclude that her hanging out with this new crowd had something to do with her new behavior if you knew these kids smoked pot and got in trouble? You bet you would. You'd believe it sure as shootin', and you'd forbid her to see these kids anymore. My beliefs are derived by the same means.

But here you are giving an example which relies in no way, shape or form on race. You never say whether my daughter or the the environment she is in is dominated by any ethnicity at all, nor make any statement about her own ethnicity. So you're making a statement purely about learned social behaviors. And in that, we agree 100%

But when you talk about blacks and statistics regarding blacks and claim that such is in their nature, you are making a claim based on genetics which is correlation without any evidence of causation. Although I think I recall you stating once that when you refer to "nature" you are talking about both genetics AND environment (please correct me if I'm misremembering). If so, then you are grouping both "nature" and "nurture" into a single category of "nature" which is improper. And I think this is where we were at the last time when I asked for you to clarify what you mean when you say "by nature." Perhaps you could correct me if I misremembered our prior argument, and clarify you meaning of "bu nature" when discussing this topic.

[Pale Rider]

Over-simplification (or false generalization) is also a logical fallacy. So no, I'm pointing out the logical construction of a compound proposition which can be shown to be true. Your statements for the most part, are ill-formed statements of opinion, nothing more. That's it. Over. Done. Class dismissed.j

... not yet... nooot yet. There is no 'over' or 'under' simplification in this instance. It's a one step process. That's all. Over. Done. NOW class is dismissed.

But here you are giving an example which relies in no way, shape or form on race.

So.... what's that got to do with price of tea in China?

You never say whether my daughter or the the environment she is in is dominated by any ethnicity at all, nor make any statement about her own ethnicity.

Makes absolutely zero difference. Just forget race. Race doesn't matter.

So you're making a statement purely about learned social behaviors. And in that, we agree 100%

Learned, influenced, whatever. The point is the behavior is real, and you intentionally came to a conclusion because of it's origin.

But when you talk about blacks and statistics regarding blacks and claim that such is in their nature, you are making a claim based on genetics which is correlation without any evidence of causation.

That's correct. I've admitted I can't prove it. I'm reacting to input on behavior and forming a belief. Nothing scientific about it. Never claimed there was anything scientific about it.

Although I think I recall you stating once that when you refer to "nature" you are talking about both genetics AND environment (please correct me if I'm misremembering). If so, then you are grouping both "nature" and "nurture" into a single category of "nature" which is improper.

That would be improper, but I never did that. I did say that "I believe," that blacks are inherently more predisposed to violence than other races, meaning by nature I guess, but I nuture is another topic far and away separate. I have stated as much.

And I think this is where we were at the last time when I asked for you to clarify what you mean when you say "by nature." Perhaps you could correct me if I misremembered our prior argument, and clarify you meaning of "bu nature" when discussing this topic.

"My belief is," that blacks are inherently more prone to violence than other races. I make that distinction by the volumes of statistics, facts, and scientific commentary indicating as much. If you disagree with my belief, that is definitely your prerogative.

[Kathianne]

... not yet... nooot yet. There is no 'over' or 'under' simplification in this instance. It's a one step process. That's all. Over. Done. NOW class is dismissed.


So.... what's that got to do with price of tea in China?


Makes absolutely zero difference. Just forget race. Race doesn't matter.


Learned, influenced, whatever. The point is the behavior is real, and you intentionally came to a conclusion because of it's origin.


That's correct. I've admitted I can't prove it. I'm reacting to input on behavior and forming a belief. Nothing scientific about it. Never claimed there was anything scientific about it.


That would be improper, but I never did that. I did say that "I believe," that blacks are inherently more predisposed to violence than other races, meaning by nature I guess, but I nuture is another topic far and away separate. I have stated as much.


"My belief is," that blacks are inherently more prone to violence than other races. I make that distinction by the volumes of statistics, facts, and scientific commentary indicating as much. If you disagree with my belief, that is definitely your prerogative.

So it is.

[Pale Rider]

So it is.

Nobody's perfect.

[CockySOB]

Nobody's perfect.

Don't tell the lefties... that'd ruin their self-images.