I think you’re a closet racist who won’t give up comparing black people to violent dogs even when asked not to, and that you like to hide behind generalities.
Three possibilities exist:
that you accidentally made a racist argument comparing black UK citizens to violent dogs, and you didn’t realise, in which case on hearing that it might be offensive to compare black US citizens to violent dogs, you would obviously have realised, apologised and backtracked by now. These are the actions of someone who didn’t mean to offend.
that you deliberately made a racist argument and you aren’t prepared to back down even when it’s pointed out to you. This is exactly how you’re behaving. For days now.
I thought it was option 1 at first. It isn’t.
The way you’re behaving reveals to me that it was your intent all along to make this false equivalence because you thought it was a cool own-the-libs arguing position. If that really isn’t you, I beg of you, take a step back and reconsider how you’re communicating.
I have at no point compared black people to dogs, or even mentioned anything related to race beyond a comparison of statistical facts to showcase how ridiculous the argument is. You’re creating a Straw man to attack and deflecting my question, so we’ll keep going in circles forever, because answering a straight yes or no would compromise you.
Read everything that I posted so far and you will realize the entire time what I’m saying is “a small subgroup causing the most fatalities, therefore subgroup aggressive” is a bad argument. That is the whole of what I’m saying, and you haven’t replied whether you think that is a good or a bad argument. The reason why you haven’t done so is simple:
If you say it’s a bad argument you’re agreeing with me, therefore no reply is needed.
If you say it’s a good argument then you’re agreeing with any racist asshole who uses the same argument applied to people, and you should take a long hard look at yourself to see whether that’s the kind of peraon you want to be. And honestly, I don’t want to keep talking to anyone who thinks like this as they have been so brainwashed they won’t get convinced by a random person online.
In reality I’m fairly confident you want the argument to apply to dogs but not to people, and that’s just not how logic works. Facts are facts, you can’t disagree with them, the conclusion from those facts is logic, and that can be flawed (as is for the case of the proof of aggressive behavior). So when confronted with the fact that you’re defending a logic argument that can be made about people, instead of thinking “huh, I guess it’s a bad argument” you go “I’m not racist, you’re racist”, that is called deflection. So you attack a Straw man argument that I’m comparing people to dogs so that you don’t have to admit that your prejudice against pitbulls made you agree with an undefendable racist argument. Still the conclusion is the same, there’s no reason to reply to someone who’s being fallacious at best and making bad faith arguments at worst. If you honestly expect any answer from me your reply should clearly state whether you consider the “X is a small subgroup yet causes the majority of fatalities, therefore X is dangerous” a good argument.
I think you’re a closet racist who won’t give up comparing black people to violent dogs even when asked not to, and that you like to hide behind generalities.
Three possibilities exist:
I thought it was option 1 at first. It isn’t.
The way you’re behaving reveals to me that it was your intent all along to make this false equivalence because you thought it was a cool own-the-libs arguing position. If that really isn’t you, I beg of you, take a step back and reconsider how you’re communicating.
I have at no point compared black people to dogs, or even mentioned anything related to race beyond a comparison of statistical facts to showcase how ridiculous the argument is. You’re creating a Straw man to attack and deflecting my question, so we’ll keep going in circles forever, because answering a straight yes or no would compromise you.
Read everything that I posted so far and you will realize the entire time what I’m saying is “a small subgroup causing the most fatalities, therefore subgroup aggressive” is a bad argument. That is the whole of what I’m saying, and you haven’t replied whether you think that is a good or a bad argument. The reason why you haven’t done so is simple:
If you say it’s a bad argument you’re agreeing with me, therefore no reply is needed.
If you say it’s a good argument then you’re agreeing with any racist asshole who uses the same argument applied to people, and you should take a long hard look at yourself to see whether that’s the kind of peraon you want to be. And honestly, I don’t want to keep talking to anyone who thinks like this as they have been so brainwashed they won’t get convinced by a random person online.
In reality I’m fairly confident you want the argument to apply to dogs but not to people, and that’s just not how logic works. Facts are facts, you can’t disagree with them, the conclusion from those facts is logic, and that can be flawed (as is for the case of the proof of aggressive behavior). So when confronted with the fact that you’re defending a logic argument that can be made about people, instead of thinking “huh, I guess it’s a bad argument” you go “I’m not racist, you’re racist”, that is called deflection. So you attack a Straw man argument that I’m comparing people to dogs so that you don’t have to admit that your prejudice against pitbulls made you agree with an undefendable racist argument. Still the conclusion is the same, there’s no reason to reply to someone who’s being fallacious at best and making bad faith arguments at worst. If you honestly expect any answer from me your reply should clearly state whether you consider the “X is a small subgroup yet causes the majority of fatalities, therefore X is dangerous” a good argument.