Senal

I think knowing that these voters base their position on abortion on the belief that it is murder hurts your position so it’s better not to answer. Or you just don’t know them that well and really have no idea.

I mean, i've no idea because it's never happened, you also have no idea.

You can assure me it's true all you want, your assurances mean nothing to me if they don't make any sense.

The argument that these voters’ position on abortion (and therefore their votes) are based on race necessarily requires that they are aware of the statistics.

It does not, at all.

A decision can easily be based on a belief, an understanding of relevant statistical values isn't required.

If the claim is they vote this way because it disproportionately harms minorities, how do they know it disproportionately harms minorities?

That's not the claim, the claim is "Some people vote this way , wholly or partially because they think it disproportionately harms minorities"

They probably don't know , they may think it does, or hope it does, or not care at all either way.

There are of course people who are voting solely on their opinion of "baby murder is bad", nobody is or has been arguing otherwise.

You are arguing race isn't a factor, i am arguing that that's an impossible position to defend and no "All the people i know aren't racist" doesn't count as a valid defense.

But I’m glad we agree that they do not know that.

Common ground is a good basis for understanding.

Are you under the impression their position toward abortion would be different if the entire state or country were 100% white? I assure you it would not be. And if that’s true, it cannot be based on race.

I've no idea, all i was stating is that dismissing race as a part of the decision making process (consciously or unconsciously) in a place known for outcomes based on race could be considered dumbing down the argument.

What’s more is this argument that their position on abortion is informed by statistics is laughable. These are low information voters. You seriously think they even know the stats? Why in the world would anyone think that?

Entirely laughable, which is why nobody has claimed this.

I was saying these people are what makes up the statistics.

As an entirely made up example:

"10% of the population don't like the taste of potatoes" doesn't mean 10% of the population base their decisions about eating fries on reading the statistics.

claims such as "All the people i know like potatoes , so potato preference can't possibly be related to the amount of fries eaten" just doesnt make any sense.

and to be clear I'm not claiming all positions are race based, just that it's enough of a factor that pretending it doesn't have any impact at all is some gold medal mental gymnastics.

I grew up in Texas in a deep red county.

In a country notorious for it's systemic and institutionalized racism, you grew up in a section that votes predominantly for the party that is notoriously racist ( In general, not in comparison to any other party ) and would claim that race has no part in a decision that is known to have racial divides in applicability.

That might be the greatest feat of mental gymnastics i've ever seen, truly.

On the off-chance you genuinely mean what you say:

That you and the people you know don't care about race is laudable, but it doesn't seem to be broadly applicable to the rest of the state or country ( and in the case of republicans their party )

"This stops them from killing babies" and "This also predominantly affects the group I don't like" aren't mutually exclusive ideas

I'm stating my opinions just as you are.

Nobody is putting words into your mouth. I'm responding to the words you have said.

I've been trying to understand how you could hold such opinions in the face of both facts and your own stated understatings.

Seems willful ignorance is where we landed.

From your other responses elsewhere in the thread it seems this isn't isolated to just this exchange.

For the record, I do not appreciate your opinion on this as it lacks merit or substance.

If you are unwilling or unable to defend your opinions, a public forum is unlikely to be a good experience for you.

I'd suggest a blog, with the comments turned off.

Do you think anyone (regardless of race) should have received that level of response in that situation ? As with any dispute, both parties can always strive for more, but I try to put myself in the cop’s situation. How long is long enough before you have to pull somebody who is clearly not cooperating from their car? Not following a lawful order during a traffic stop is a misdemeanor, which means you may be exiting your vehicle whether you like it or not.

That's not an answer to the question, that's a reiteration of your previous stance.

Do you think anyone (regardless of race) would have received that level of response in that situation ? I am positive racism plays a part in policing. But I didn’t see anything in this that leads me to believe Tyreek’s skin color affected his outcome.

Given that answer i go back to my previous question of :

If you understand racism plays a part in policing, what makes you think this is the exception ?

I’m a white dude and I easily see this happening to me if I did what he did.

You are entitled to your opinion, but the overall statistics disagree with you.

Not in an individual instance sense, but in an overall sense. You might very well have this same thing happen, but it's statistically much less likely.

I’d personally view that as two opposing viewpoints, either you think he had it coming or you’re sorry it happened.

They are not opposing or mutually exclusive viewpoints. I can be sorry for someone for the outcome they have been dealt based on their own actions. I can be sorry for him but also unsurprised.

Now this is interesting, i wouldn't consider "they had it coming" to be the same as "I'm unsurprised this happened" , one is very much assigning blame and the other is more neutral.

If you meant the latter, then sure, not mutually exclusive.

"I can be sorry for someone for the outcome they have been dealt based on their own actions." can easily be interpreted the same way as "I'm sorry he made the officer drag him out of his car but he totally deserved it".

Yes, I truly feel this way in these circumstances. Perhaps I’m a naive idiot, but I just didn’t sense that he was treated that unfairly given his actions.

The point the article was making wasn't that he was treated unfairly based on his actions, it was that the treatment he received was different (read: worse) because of his race.

That the treatment he received could be considered unfair for the situation isn't the point.

A boy and a girl both steal an apple, they both get grounded, the boy is also banned from the shop.

"Well the girl still got grounded" doesn't negate that the punishment wasn't equal.

Same as "The boy deserved punishment" doesn't negate that the punishment wasn't equal.

If you truly understand that racism is a large problem in all aspects of policing, that isn't naivety that's wilful ignorance.

It’s more the latter. I don’t argue that race disparity exists. I’m only arguing that Tyreek did not do any kind of favor to himself in how he handled the situation.

Agreed, but "didn't do the most optimal thing in a given situation" isn't the same as "deserved to be dragged out of his car"

Especially in a situation where it is known to be significantly more dangerous, regardless of behaviour, for someone of a more melanin-rich persuasion.

This confusion is easily resolved though, let's clarify with a couple questions.

Do you think anyone (regardless of race) should have received that level of response in that situation ?

Do you think anyone (regardless of race) would have received that level of response in that situation ?

I’m sorry he got pulled from his car and cuffed, but my reaction to the video was that he had this coming.

I'd personally view that as two opposing viewpoints, either you think he had it coming or you're sorry it happened.

Blatantly disobeying an officer’s requests and in a way that can lead the officer to feel unsure over his/her safety and perceived control of the situation is going to end poorly.

And this is the crux of the issue, officers feeling unsafe and their level of perceived control is known to have a direct correlation to how reflective your skin is.

That doesn't even account for the officers with a blatant racial bias.

So you can argue that point, but the threshold for where actions end up in poor outcomes is intrinsically linked to race, any argument you make is going need to account for that or it's going to be perceived as missing a large chunk of the context.

Which is what is happening here.

This could easily happen to a white person.

That's subjective but again, let's clarify :

In these exact same circumstances, you'd expect a white person to be treated in the exact same way ?

I don't have any studies to hand, but isn't the disparity between police responses to non-white vs white suspects a given at this point, in the US at least?

But lets look at your argument both ways.

On the one hand you'd be arguing that race disparity in police responses doesn't exist at all and so wouldn't apply here.

Or

Race disparity exists, but in this specific situation it doesn't apply for some reason.

If that's the case , id be interested in hearing why you think it doesn't apply in this specific circumstance?

Neither of those sound plausible to me but i could be missing what your actual argument is entirely, in which case, would you mind explaining why it doesn't fall in to the above categories?

Another indication you haven't actually read any of the papers, even the titles

3/5 of the papers are for both dogs and cats.

I'm aware the title of the post you linked to was exclusivity about cats, the content of the majority of papers was not.

No goalposts were moved i was responding to the information you posted, if you aren't going to actually read them yourself your opinion on what constitutes goalposts means nothing.

Other than the final line, nothing in my response even mentions dogs.

However, lets say we only apply what i said to cats, every single point still stands.

I'm assuming you don't have any actual arguments or you would have mentioned them instead of picking up on a single word that doesn't actually change the content of the response.

Feel free to surprise me though.

TL;DR;

Posting a link to a bunch of other links you don't seem to have actually read isn't a good basis for an argument

Scientific evidence, sure, but if you'd actually read them you'd see they aren't as inline with your argument as you seem to think.

Do you mean the one behind a paywall

Perhaps the one consisting almost entirely of owner reported (and thus inherently bias) results

Maybe the meta-study that specifically calls out how little quality and volume there is in this areas of study, comments on how self-reported studies are bias and in conclusion basically says:

“It doesn’t seem to immediately kill your pets in the limited studies that have been done, we have even seen some benefits, but we don’t have enough quality data to be that confident about anything”

How about this one which is again largely based on self-reported results.

You should actually read the "Study Limitations" section for this one.

Or the last one which is about vegetarian diets, again goes out of it's way to specifically call out the lack of current research and that the majority of current research supporting these diets is "rarely conducted in accordance with the highest standards of evidence-based medicine"

I'm aware i'm cherry picking quotes and points here, but only to illustrate that these papers aren't the silver bullet you seem to think.

Not to say there is no validity to the argument that these diets can be beneficial but it's a far cry from vegan diets are scientifically proven safe for cats and dogs.

Hey did we just have a productive disscussion with differing opinions without devolving into a shouting match.

Thats the one same difference

Not really, one has religious connotations the other doesn't.

We society and depends on how u look at history and ur interpretation of the purpose of government itself

My interpretation is different, but not any less subjective than yours, so fair enough.

What do u think?

I think that your argument implies that your right to smoke in the smokers section is greater than someone else's right to not have to ingest second hand smoke from you smoking in the smokers section.

U cant just proclaim something to be true.

That's fair and i worded my argument somewhat poorly, I'll clarify what i meant in the next sections.

You dont have to go to the pub and expose yourself to the risks associated alcohol, drunk idiots, dumb cunts, covid riddled mouse breathers, adverse political opinions, suspiciously sticky floors etc.

This is true for all.

In the context of the original statement, what i meant to say was the argument “but they don’t have to be near the smokers” holds about as much weight as people saying "well they can just smoke when they get home", technically yes but we are talking about situations where both parties are in attendance.

Whats the level of acceptable risk i would imagine that smoke distributes in accordance with the inverse square law so perhaps simply requiring a little extra “buffer space” would reduce said risk within acceptable tolerances.

That is also my understanding, but that assumes a completely neutral space with no directional blowing, no obstacles etc, also a lot of smoking areas aren't exactly as "outside" as they could be.

I'm not arguing the level of acceptable risk either way , i have no idea and i'd imagine its heavily subjective.

Look i see where ya coming from but i definatly feel this is the slightly thicker than last time end of the wedge that the nany state is never gonna stop hammering.

Oh absolutely, even if it wasn't bullshit posturing and political grandstanding it's a far cry from the most effective thing they could be doing to alleviate the "huge burden" on the NHS.