Susan Boyle assaulted, harassed by gang of 15 youths

Frankly I habitually exclude Eastern Europe from my thinking...when I say Europe I mean the West. A bad fault of my generation, I suppose, but they were behind the Iron Curtain back then.

 

yes, of course it's racist. And no, it isn't factual. It's correlation = causation fallacy.

 

nope. My argument is exactly the same. I just use a shorter version "racist" instead of typing out the whole thing.

ah. I see your problem then. I didn't make a false premise.

of course you do.

 

I don't have "no argument". I'm pointing out yours is bullshit, because correlation doesn't equal causation. You can not like that all you want, but reality remains just the same.

Your argument has been refuted. correlation does not equal causation.

 

Alright, have fun at the kids table then. If you're not going to provide anything substantial I'll just move past it. The statistics and data are on my side, if you don't like it, you can at least provide alternatives. If you don't want to, we're done here.

 

Your argument is not the same when the definition of racism requires supremacy and then doesn't require supremacy.

Yes you did.

False, I already stated my beliefs and they are not supremacist.

 

lol, I'm not the one who doesn't know how to debate. You are employing a logical fallacy as your premise, and it has been pointed out and refuted.

your argument is defeated, because it is based on a logical fallacy. I suggest regrouping, and coming up with something new.

and I've shown why and how your "statistics and data" are meaningless.

I've refuted your data and statistics. If you want to pick up your ball and go home pouting, be my guest.

 

strawman.

no I didn't.

your posts prove otherwise.

 

Not at all, as already demonstrated with your contradiction of yourself.

If your premise is that I believe whites are superior to blacks and browns, it is indeed a false premise.

Based on your meaningless subjective interpretation of them. I've already defined my views. Your unwillingness to accept them isn't based on any objective evidence, just your subjective opinions which are not credible.

 

For someone that's posted as often as you have, and for someone that's been here as long as you have, you'd think in 7 years you'd have learned that the burden of an argument lies with the one trying to argue against data. You claim racism requires a supremacy construct, yet, my earlier list didn't have one, and you still called it racist, you've still yet to give any conclusive reason as to why.

You're arguing against crime data saying correlation doesn't equal causation. Yet, the data clearly shows blacks commit the most crime, followed by latino groups in the US. This isn't a small sample size, this is literally the entire population of the US. You keep screaming correlation doesn't equal causation, like a six year old, but what you don't understand apparently is that the only thing I showed with that data is that minority groups have higher crime rates.

You have no basis for your claims, you're simply screaming the fallacy that worked best for you in your college rhetoric class. The entire reason you're not to be taken seriously is because there's literally NOTHING TO CORRELATE here. You've refuted nothing, you've argued nothing, you've contributed nothing, and you keep claiming -I'm- the one defeated? There comes a time when the conversation is no longer worth having, as nothing will get accomplished. It's like arguing with children or the mentally disabled. There's no point to it after a while.

 

It's just a trolling act that he does when he can't win an argument. In his world, "no it isn't" with no evidence provided is a perfectly valid and substantive reply in a debate, and is worthy of a self-congratulatory victory lap as long as his post is the last word in a discussion. I think it's fairly typical of the kind of debate style that is predominant on the left, in general.

 

Well you'll note I did say:

I'd suggest anyone open to the fact of our inborn desire to segregate take a look at the video.

 

nope. strawman. there is no contradiction.

nope, as your posting history proves otherwise.

nope. as your posting history proves otherwise.

 

actually the burden lies on the one making the positive assertion. Your argument is fatally flawed as it is based on a fallacy. You need to regroup and prove your assertion without the use of fallacy.

 

lol, refuting racists bullshit isn't an act, nor is it trolling.

 

Maybe the 'youths' are just mad that she looks better in a skirt than they do. Scotsmen and their skirts will cause no end of problems for them...

 

You claimed supremacy was not required for racism and then said it was. That's a contradiction.

No it doesn't. I've explained my beliefs in this thread.

Then post something from me where I said whites are superior to blacks and browns.

 

You're not refuting anything, though.

 

no I didn't.

and your posting history shows you lied.

http://politicalforum.com/index.php?members/brewskier.55657/

 

of course I am

 

I showed that you did, referencing the posts in question.

No it doesn't. Feel free to prove I'm lying.

That's not a post where I claimed whites are superior to blacks and browns, that's simply a link to my profile. Care to try again?

 

What have you refuted, specifically?

 

He can have the last word for all I care, I'm done engaging in conversation with children, much as I hate to say it, I'm just going to ignore him and move on.

 

no you didn't, as I have shown you.

I did

that's a link to your posting history. Feel free to read through it. It's quite interesting.

 

his argument