Rumpole
Diamond Member
- Mar 20, 2023
- 3,314
- 2,663
- 1,928
No, you've got it all wrong. In my view, having been a participant on numerous debate forums going back to the days of Usenet in the late 90s, the usual purpose of a discussion/debate forum is to discuss, debate, i.e., scrutinize arguments, be they fallacious, weak, or strong. One man's 'propaganda', which falls under the category of a weak or fallacious/specious argument, is another man's strong argument. In debate, we hash these things out and, with some luck, no matter how remote is the prospect, just maybe we will achieve a middle ground where a meeting of mind can be achieved. You see, with your point I could just easily levy the same charge right back at you, and what then, we do not discuss anything? THe point is to promote discussion and constructive debate, not kill, by one person's unilateral arbitrary decision, the debate. Despite that lofty or remote prospect, ad homs have nothing to do with the process. and they are simply not conducive to constructive discussion and debate, period. The caliber of the argument is irrelevant to that principle.It's what you rate as responses; spreading silly propaganda talking points invented by criminal syndicates is not a constructive attempt at discourse. In fact, discourse is the last thing you hope to achieve here.
As for your list of silly myths ...
myth of over-sentencing black criminals - Google Search
www.google.com
The Peanut Gallery lurkers who aren't familiar with the real story re black criminals like Floyd and his fellow thugs can find their own info on that. they can also note for themselves the violent crime rates in black neighborhoods and see who are the real victims of under-incarceration of murdering gangbanger thugs are.
You have made the claim, the onus is on you, not others, to substantiate YOUR claim.
Last edited: