So apparently JonTron is a racist

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NEXT
 

Ninjamedic:
Or I'm pointing out that the whole internet mob mentality isn't just bound to any one group and is endemic to the current state of the internet and social media.

I like my observation better. Less petulant, more directly relevant to the thread.

BeetleManiac:

Ninjamedic:
Or I'm pointing out that the whole internet mob mentality isn't just bound to any one group and is endemic to the current state of the internet and social media.

I like my observation better. Less petulant, more directly relevant to the thread.

Um how? I made an observation of what could have dragged people to say things like Jon, and you just came along and tried to dismiss it.

I don't see how observing the possible effects of outrage driven controversy it petulant.

Ninjamedic:

BeetleManiac:

Ninjamedic:
Or I'm pointing out that the whole internet mob mentality isn't just bound to any one group and is endemic to the current state of the internet and social media.

I like my observation better. Less petulant, more directly relevant to the thread.

Um how? I made an observation of what could have dragged people to say things like Jon, and you just came along and tried to dismiss it.

I don't see how observing the possible effects of outrage driven controversy it petulant.

Seeing how JonTron reacted back then, I agree more with BeetleManiac.

There are dozens of ways to gracefully handle (and even repel) the backlash. JonTron did the opposite of that (heck! Even "Fuck off! Freedom of speech, bitches!" would had been more graceful). Saying that his choice of words (and later alignment with "skeptics") was forced by the Internet mob, speaks worse about him than about the mob.

soooo Shibby, buddy, pal, amigo.

It is you that linked the sources, and it is you that is picking apart the legitimacy of the first source. So which is it? Is the first source good evidence of your position "Wealthy blacks commit more crime than poor whites" or is it an example of a "shit paper" from 1979 that is suppressing the truth, because you seem to have switched arguments here.

As for the second. You set out to prove: "Wealthy blacks commit more crime than poor whites". Correct me if I'm wrong, but the tables you are looking at show that wealthy black experience more crime. Distribution of homicide rates shows to whom the homicide occurs but doesn't say who committed those homicides.

Aka from the concluding remarks: "This paper presents a set of empirical results on the relationship between income and crime victimization and how that pattern has changed over time." Emphasis mine. Now you might ask, who committed those crimes? Well, I don't know; the paper doesn't seem to say- but the fault is yours because you are 0 for 2 for linking relevant papers. Maybe next time don't zero in on the numbers to the exclusion of the words surrounding the numbers, because they provide context and meaning to what those numbers actually describe.

In addition, I would also suggest using papers at the very least from the 2000's and on, but preferably from 2010 and on, so we are at least in the same decade. Longitudinal studies are fine so long as they conclude in around about the same decade as the present, as we are discussing the present.

CaitSeith:

There are dozens of ways to gracefully handle (and even repel) the backlash. JonTron did the opposite of that (heck! Even "Fuck off! Freedom of speech, bitches!" would had been more graceful). Saying that his choice of words (and later alignment with "skeptics") was forced by the Internet mob, speaks worse about him than about the mob.

If you say so, I just think it's handwaving the outrage just because you don't like the target in question.

CaitSeith:
There are dozens of ways to gracefully handle (and even repel) the backlash. JonTron did the opposite of that (heck! Even "Fuck off! Freedom of speech, bitches!" would had been more graceful). Saying that his choice of words (and later alignment with "skeptics") was forced by the Internet mob, speaks worse about him than about the mob.

Yeah, pretty much.

Ninjamedic:
[quote="CaitSeith" post="18.948071.23932147"]If you say so, I just think it's handwaving the outrage just because you don't like the target in question.

Just because you think something does not automatically make you right. Jon reacted like a moron to what should have been a non-issue, but apparently he is somehow blameless for his actions and should not be held responsible for repeating Nazi propaganda because (gasp!) some people on the internet weren't nice enough to him. Whatever happened to just growing a thicker skin?

BeetleManiac:

Just because you think something does not automatically make you right.

Okay then.

Jon reacted like a moron to what should have been a non-issue, but apparently he is somehow blameless for his actions and should not be held responsible for repeating Nazi propaganda because (gasp!) some people on the internet weren't nice enough to him.

Right, point to where I said that. Demonstrate how my raising his previous encounters with controversy must have meant I absolved him of his actions.

Go on.

Ninjamedic:
Right, point to where I said that. Demonstrate how my raising his previous encounters with controversy must meant mean I absolved him of his actions.

Go on.

So you agree then with my assessment earlier that he's emotionally delicate and sorely lacking in critical thinking? You agree that he overreacts to things he shouldn't? You do think that he should be held responsible for the stupid shit he says? And if so, why is the so-called "outrage" worth commenting on and implying it's the fault of those commenting that Jon says stupid shit?

shibbydibby:
It's a badly written, researched, and organised paper. Either deliberately or through incompetence. Regardless, it proves the

"This research paper totally sucks! Everything about it is awful! It's wrong on every level! And that's why it's positive evidence for the pre-fab talking points I keep calling people cucks for not believing in!"

Ninjamedic:

CaitSeith:

There are dozens of ways to gracefully handle (and even repel) the backlash. JonTron did the opposite of that (heck! Even "Fuck off! Freedom of speech, bitches!" would had been more graceful). Saying that his choice of words (and later alignment with "skeptics") was forced by the Internet mob, speaks worse about him than about the mob.

If you say so, I just think it's handwaving the outrage just because you don't like the target in question.

I like several of his videos. He isn't a bad comedian and I don't mind the use of "retarded" in his jokes or twits. So, no. My criticism about his reactions to the outrage aren't because I don't like him; but because dozens of people get similar backlash, and they handle it much better.

Now bearing in mind Beetle didn't find what I asked him to...

BeetleManiac:

You agree that he overreacts to things he shouldn't?

Well yes, but overreaction is the Internet's main pastime.

You do think that he should be held responsible for the stupid shit he says?

Define responsible here.

And if so, why is the so-called "outrage" worth commenting on?

Well apart from bringing something of discussion that isn't self-aggrandizing, I thought noting that he was on the receiving end of overreaction himself would skew his views and that is might make "They can't handle what you're trying to say" an easier sell if their reaction to an insult is to go off the handle.

shibbydibby:

Falling:

So which is it? Is the first source good evidence of your position "Wealthy blacks commit more crime than poor whites" or is it an example of a "shit paper" from 1979 that is suppressing the truth, because you seem to have switched arguments here.

It's a badly written, researched, and organised paper. Either deliberately or through incompetence. Regardless, it proves the

Falling:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the tables you are looking at show that wealthy black experience more crime. Distribution of homicide rates shows where the crime occurs but doesn't say who committed those crimes.

It literally makes no difference, since the overwhelming majority of homicides in general are committed against the people of similar race. Whites kill white far more than any other race. Blacks kill blacks far more than any other race. And this is common knowledge. "Black on Black" has been a meme for decades now. In fact, proof of this is right there in the other article. One or two percentage points is negligible.
From those two sources, anyone with an ounce of intellectual integrity would come to the conclusion from this that these two sources are evidence of Jontrons claim. At the absolute minimum, you would realise that his claim has at the very least a grounding in authenticity, rather than something to be mocked. And you're doing exactly what I said you would do: engage in autistic, specious, hypercritical sophistry. Your caught in a downpour and denying the existence that it's raining, because the last time it rained it blew in from a different direction. Grasping for any paddle you can to cope with your cognitive dissonance.

You should paint a picture or write a poem or something. Something productive to calm those thoughts. Come on in, the water is warm...

CaitSeith:
] So, no. My criticism about his reactions to the outrage aren't because I don't like him; but because dozens of people get similar backlash, and they handle it much better.

I was just making a guess about his state of mind really.

Ninjamedic:
Now bearing in mind Beetle didn't find what I asked him to...

Yes, because I wanted to see if I had misread your intentions. I still don't know what you're trying to accomplish.

Define responsible here.

He's saying the dumb shit and demanding everyone else look it up for him. Responsible in that he's the one making the truth claims and then failing to back them up. Is that his failure? Or the failure of people who were "outraged" by him?

Well apart from bringing something of discussion that isn't self-aggrandizing, I thought noting that he was on the receiving end of overreaction himself would skew his views and that is might make "They can't handle what you're trying to say" an easier sell if their reaction to an insult is to go off the handle.

Your definition of overreaction and mine are apparently very different. Probably because I've endured way worse treatment than you're referring to and over much dumber causes. And yet, here I am today, still not a Nazi-apologist.

What do a bunch of people calling bullshit on his overreaction to a polite request change about the fact that he's repeating racist propaganda? Are you implying that they somehow share in the responsibility for him acting like a dipshit?

You know, I was going to elaborate on why I don;t think some of the reactions aren't going to help him see sense and then I see this:

BeetleManiac:

And yet, here I am today, still not a Nazi-apologist.

And here we have the real purpose of all of this, proclaiming your moral superiority over someone on the internet.

So fine, go right ahead, I'm sure this will convince anyone who agrees with Jon to see the error of their thinking.

Enjoy your victory on an internet forum with increasingly less traffic.

Ninjamedic:
You know, I was going to elaborate on why I don;t think some of the reactions aren't going to help him see sense and then I see this:

Does this mean I get to label you as "outraged" and attacking my free speech now? Is that how this works?

Dude, just tell me point blank: what were you trying to accomplish by bringing up fake outrage in the first place? I honestly have no idea what point you were trying to make. If you want to be understood, now's your chance.

Ninjamedic:

CaitSeith:
] So, no. My criticism about his reactions to the outrage aren't because I don't like him; but because dozens of people get similar backlash, and they handle it much better.

I was just making a guess about his state of mind really.

And also guessing the cause. It's not bad to speculate about either of them. I just disagree with the idea that the mob is the main responsible of his current state of mind. IMO at most they are just a link in the chain that led him there.

Irwin126:

John Is not a racist, Just a misguided idiot. It's not worth talking for 13 pages, [and giving the thread maker all the badges.]

Um... if "We must restrict immigration to protect the gene pool from being diluted" and "black people are genetically predisposed to crime" isn't racist, than what the hell is?

Zontar:
The FBI given the conviction rate based on race and cross-referenced with income. Unless there's a massive conspiracy that no one has been able to uncover the existence of, rich black young men are marginally more likely to commit a crime then poor white men are.

The "conspiracy" is called the war on drugs. This is a long but really educational video explaining some of the issues that the black community is facing because of it:

The gist of it is that if the cops are targeting blacks more than whites, and if blacks are being convicted for the same crimes disproportionally more often than whites, of course the statistics are going to reflect that. But statistics aren't going to tell you why that's happening. It's not going to explain to you why it isn't happening in other countries around the world and why it's a uniquely American problem.

@shibby.
I hope when you return from your suspension, you've settled down.

shibbydibby:

I sure do hope you don't let facts get in the way of your worldview.

shibbydibby:

Falling:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the tables you are looking at show that wealthy black experience more crime. Distribution of homicide rates shows where the crime occurs but doesn't say who committed those crimes.

It literally makes no difference,

One of these things is not like the other. Talk about cognitive dissonance. You (and JonTron) set out to prove that wealthy blacks commit more crimes than the poor whites. You have not done so. It makes all the difference in the world if it is the wealthy black committing the crime or receiving the crime. It's the complete reverse- one proves it, the other does not. I would even throw you a bone- it is very, very likely that on average the wealthy black are receiving crime from the poor black. But the paper can't prove who commits homicide (much less wealthy blacks) because the paper isn't about who commits homicide. That is the definition of intellectual dishonesty: using a paper that says one thing to prove something it doesn't even talk about. No sophistry. No hypocrisy (except from you)

Also, in what world does

It's a badly written, researched, and organised paper.

(emphasis mine) prove anything? How can you claim intellectual integrity when relying upon a paper that you say is badly researched. To any reasonable person, a badly researched paper is evidence of exactly nothing.

Once the chaff of your assumptions and assertions are blown away, all you are left with is a handful of petty insults. Someone like you "takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion."

McMarbles:

Irwin126:

John Is not a racist, Just a misguided idiot. It's not worth talking for 13 pages, [and giving the thread maker all the badges.]

Um... if "We must restrict immigration to protect the gene pool from being diluted" and "black people are genetically predisposed to crime" isn't racist, than what the hell is?

To be frank, I think some people think your views aren't racist so long as you don't approve of slavery and lynchings.

Ninjamedic:

CaitSeith:

There are dozens of ways to gracefully handle (and even repel) the backlash. JonTron did the opposite of that (heck! Even "Fuck off! Freedom of speech, bitches!" would had been more graceful). Saying that his choice of words (and later alignment with "skeptics") was forced by the Internet mob, speaks worse about him than about the mob.

If you say so, I just think it's handwaving the outrage just because you don't like the target in question.

After seeing the way he's made an ass of himself, I honestly wonder who will like Jontron after this.

McMarbles:

Irwin126:

John Is not a racist, Just a misguided idiot. It's not worth talking for 13 pages, [and giving the thread maker all the badges.]

Um... if "We must restrict immigration to protect the gene pool from being diluted" and "black people are genetically predisposed to crime" isn't racist, than what the hell is?

Both are most likely from some article he read, It's not to far fetch to think about it. Though him saying it was a stupid idea.

BeetleManiac:

Irwin126:
John Is not a racist, Just a misguided idiot.

Are those mutually exclusive?

It can be both, A misguided idiot is better than an misguided racist idiot.

Irwin126:

McMarbles:

Irwin126:

John Is not a racist, Just a misguided idiot. It's not worth talking for 13 pages, [and giving the thread maker all the badges.]

Um... if "We must restrict immigration to protect the gene pool from being diluted" and "black people are genetically predisposed to crime" isn't racist, than what the hell is?

Both are most likely from some article he read, It's not to far fetch to think about it. Though him saying it was a stupid idea.

BeetleManiac:

Irwin126:
John Is not a racist, Just a misguided idiot.

Are those mutually exclusive?

It can be both, A misguided idiot is better than an misguided racist idiot.

This line of thinking is bullshit and is entirely due to people being afraid of dealing with racism in the world today.

John has publicly made racist statements and made every indication that he believes those statements. He is therefore a racist. Don't pussyfoot around the issue and give him excuses. If one believes in racist nonsense, that person is a racist, full stop.

Maybe he is a racist purely due to ignorance, but he is still a racist.

If John were to make statements about Jesus Christ being our Lord and Savior and the Pope being the head of the one true Church, we would call him a Catholic. If he made statements about how he loves the Boston Red Sox and made arguments for why they're the best team, we would call him a Red Sox fan. Racism isn't special; don't give racists more excuses for the awful beliefs they hold.

edit: Simply because John is currently a racist doesn't mean that he always has been on and always will be one. Maybe with some better education, he can move past his bigoted views; at that point, he wouldn't be a racist. It's a rather simple concept. Believing in racist things = racist. Not believing in racist things = not racist.

edit 2: fixed stupidly used generic "you" statements. Sorry @Irwin126

Avnger:

Irwin126:

McMarbles:

Um... if "We must restrict immigration to protect the gene pool from being diluted" and "black people are genetically predisposed to crime" isn't racist, than what the hell is?

Both are most likely from some article he read, It's not to far fetch to think about it. Though him saying it was a stupid idea.

BeetleManiac:

Are those mutually exclusive?

It can be both, A misguided idiot is better than an misguided racist idiot.

This line of thinking is bullshit and is entirely due to people being afraid of dealing with racism in the world today.

John has publicly made racist statements and made every indication that he believes those statements. He is therefore a racist. Don't pussyfoot around the issue and give him excuses. If you believe in racist nonsense, you are a racist, full stop.

Maybe he is a racist purely due to ignorance, but he is still a racist.

If John were to make statements about Jesus Christ being our Lord and Savior and the Pope being the head of the one true Church, we would call him a Catholic. If he made statements about how he loves the Boston Red Sox and made arguments for why they're the best team, we would call him a Red Sox fan. Racism isn't special; don't give racists more excuses for the awful beliefs they hold.

edit: Simply because John is currently a racist doesn't mean that he always has been on and always will be one. Maybe with some better education, he can move past his bigoted views; at that point, he wouldn't be a racist. It's a rather simple concept. Believing in racist things = racist. Not believing in racist things = not racist.

When Did I ever say I agreed with what John said? I Just said I think what he said was stupid.
What he said at that time is indeed racist, But I don't believe he meant it. He did make a follow up video talking about his statements in a more controlled way. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIFf7qwlnSc

You are incorrect. There is nothing explicitly racist about citing facts that are controversial.
He is definitely not a racist. That is fact.

Irwin126:

Avnger:

Irwin126:

Both are most likely from some article he read, It's not to far fetch to think about it. Though him saying it was a stupid idea.

It can be both, A misguided idiot is better than an misguided racist idiot.

This line of thinking is bullshit and is entirely due to people being afraid of dealing with racism in the world today.

John has publicly made racist statements and made every indication that he believes those statements. He is therefore a racist. Don't pussyfoot around the issue and give him excuses. If you believe in racist nonsense, you are a racist, full stop.

Maybe he is a racist purely due to ignorance, but he is still a racist.

If John were to make statements about Jesus Christ being our Lord and Savior and the Pope being the head of the one true Church, we would call him a Catholic. If he made statements about how he loves the Boston Red Sox and made arguments for why they're the best team, we would call him a Red Sox fan. Racism isn't special; don't give racists more excuses for the awful beliefs they hold.

edit: Simply because John is currently a racist doesn't mean that he always has been on and always will be one. Maybe with some better education, he can move past his bigoted views; at that point, he wouldn't be a racist. It's a rather simple concept. Believing in racist things = racist. Not believing in racist things = not racist.

When Did I ever say I agreed with what John said? I Just said I think what he said was stupid.
What he said at that time is indeed racist, But I don't believe he meant it. He did make a follow up video talking about his statements in a more controlled way. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIFf7qwlnSc

I never meant to call you a racist. That was not at all what that bolded part was trying to say >_<

If you (generic)... then you (generic)...

Sorry for that ambiguity. I probably should have switched "you" to "one." My bad. I'll edit that in now.

OT: My beliefs still stand. If one is going to spout racist shit, then that person is a racist. I'd rather not give any clicks to his videos (I've never liked him even before this), so I'll take your word that the linked vid walks back what he said.

481 replies, a bunch of shit-posting, personal attacks and off-topic tangents? I asked for Discourse and you guys gave me Discourse. Beautiful.

erttheking:

Ninjamedic:

CaitSeith:

There are dozens of ways to gracefully handle (and even repel) the backlash. JonTron did the opposite of that (heck! Even "Fuck off! Freedom of speech, bitches!" would had been more graceful). Saying that his choice of words (and later alignment with "skeptics") was forced by the Internet mob, speaks worse about him than about the mob.

If you say so, I just think it's handwaving the outrage just because you don't like the target in question.

After seeing the way he's made an ass of himself, I honestly wonder who will like Jontron after this.

*looks at some of the responses throughout the thread* I can think of one or two people, yeah. And that's not even accounting for all the people who'll start following his content as a jab at 'SJWs' or whatever...

Traviltar:
You are incorrect. There is nothing explicitly racist about citing facts that are controversial.
He is definitely not a racist. That is fact.

Except the statements he made aren't actually facts. They're propaganda half-truths *at best.* If you want us to start with the basis that his statements are "controversial facts," feel free to source up. Until then, they're unsubstantiated dog-whistling.

Irwin126:
It can be both, A misguided idiot is better than an misguided racist idiot.

That would depend on what they do as a result of their ignorance. Also, can you explain to me where you draw the line between someone who believes racist things and someone who one would describe as a racist? At least, I think that's the distinction you're making? You might have to walk me through this because I think there's some connective tissue I'm missing.

BeetleManiac:

Irwin126:
It can be both, A misguided idiot is better than an misguided racist idiot.

That would depend on what they do as a result of their ignorance. Also, can you explain to me where you draw the line between someone who believes racist things and someone who one would describe as a racist? At least, I think that's the distinction you're making? You might have to walk me through this because I think there's some connective tissue I'm missing.

A Racist would be a person who thinks any other race is inferior or weaker to themselves.
John in this case is not a racist, As he worded his ideas poorly.
Check back to the video if you're curious.

But yeah, The only difference is context, A racist would try to protect their ideas with their soul, A person who believes racist ideas would try to [I hope] Debate peacefully and try to understand past their believes and try to hopefully lose their racist believes.

See, I could forgive him if it was just making a kinda offensive joke and apologizing, like PewDiePie, but no, he went full on White Power.

Irwin126:
A Racist would be a person who thinks any other race is inferior or weaker to themselves.
John in this case is not a racist, As he worded his ideas poorly.
Check back to the video if you're curious.

But yeah, The only difference is context, A racist would try to protect their ideas with their soul, A person who believes racist ideas would try to [I hope] Debate peacefully and try to understand past their believes and try to hopefully lose their racist believes.

I'm still not getting it. You draw the line at ad hominem? The 'I hope' certainly doesn't help either. There is something that needs to be said though. Racism does not implicitly require malicious intent. Like most forms of social bias it's a product of ignorance and paraedolia.

Jon's not stupid. He's also not very scientifically literate. He's seeing a correlative and mistaking it for something causal. In this case, that wealthy black people are arrested more often than poor white people on average. He assumes that the problem must be racial because of the black/white distinction. But he didn't read far enough to see that poor white people actually committed more crimes than wealthy black people, they just didn't get arrested as often. The fact that he makes the mistake of thinking that being black or living in "black culture" is a causal factor of this phenomenon is by definition racist because the logic hinges on race being a causal factor.

Jon's mistake is one of ignorance, and one he can correct if he has the will. Either way he's gotta own it.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

runic knight:

A statistic of another nation is not factual, but your ranting about your own criminal history and (finally) linking of an article talking about how 5000 people came forward in a completely different nation being talked about is more accurate?

Rich commit more crimes than working class poor? Prove it.

Actually, no, first define it properly. Then prove it. You seem to thing crimes are different for poor and rich as it is. And I don't even know if you are talking about percentage based or collectively, what defines "rich" or "poor" here, or even what damn nation you are specifying or if you are talking world-wide, so be sure to clarify that first before proving because I have my doubts you'll find any statistics to demonstrate this at all. And if all you end up having is a claim that rich people are committing more crimes built out of extrapolated examples and personal anecdote, I wont even be surprised at this point.

It is entirely unrelated to the topic at all at this point but you know what, what the hell, why not this time. I want to see this one.

Oh FFS...

A: Firstly tax evasion (and let me be clear, *evasion* like the article stresses, not avoidance) is a fucking felony. It is a *crime* ... it has specific codification in both the U.S. and Australia with legal definitions with statutory punishments that are not merely based on punitive damages awarded to an aggrieved private entity or entities.

B: About 6.5% of the entire U.S. population have a felony record.

C: We know from conservative estimates that private tax havens have in between $21-31T, $9.8T of held by fewer than 100,000 people. To put this into perspective... the entire nominal market GDP worth of the U.S. and Japan combined is held in tax havens by fewer hands than 100,000 people.

And of that $21-31T, there are a staggering 100 million people (and corporations, banks, lendee insurers, etc) who share a stake in it. According to the economist, Henry James.

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21571873-how-stop-companies-and-people-dodging-tax-delaware-well-grand-cayman-missing-20

It is impossible to calculate... but it's safe to say even non-tax havens like Australia, 30% of corporations alone pay zero corporate taxes. Merely PAYE and GST. Of which more than 10% of the super wealthy (holdings of $30M or more assets in individual control) are known tax evasion offenders by a case study *of 5000 confessions*, of which 4% of Australia's highest earners fessed up to tax evasion. Fessed up. Said they were guilty. More than enough to make a viable study. After all... 24 million people and you're doing a study on the top 1% ...

And this is not fucking North Korea. By all comparative measures, Australia is one of the few countries to actually start naming and shaming in order to drive up amnesty volunteering of tax data in offshore accounts in exchange for legal clemency.

The IRS don't even bother. In 2006 their grand total of all white collar crime (not including tax evasion) was less than 3000 sentencings. In the entire U.S. The idea of the super wealthy and corporations tax evading is not a myth, and I know for a fact it is far more rampant than all other serious crime put together. This is despite the fact that 50% of All Australian taxes are paid by the top 10% of working age income brackets.

http://theconversation.com/factcheck-is-50-of-all-income-tax-in-australia-paid-by-10-of-the-working-population-45229

So the upper middle class and lower are pulling their fair share. But not groups like Pratt Holdings, with 2.5bn in annually adjusted holdings paying 0% corporate taxes.

You have done nothing I asked here.

First, on what you did put forth here, you didn't define anything, you just ramped up on another rant.

I asked you to properly define things first, since I knew if you didn't it would be another rambling incoherent mess of irrelevant data that is utterly useless to anything at all but your own mental constructions.

I don't know what your statement of "rich commit more crimes" relates to as you switch between multiple nations and yet don't make any comprehensive stand on if you meant worldwide.

I still don't know how you define "rich" or "poor" in this case. You list "super rich", which only further confuses the point by adding a subgroup to an already not defined group comparison.

I don't know how you are defining "crime" even, as you seem to be just rolling with it defined as "felony" which is just a specific type of crime, and yet later on you switch back to general "breaking the law" type of crime. And throughout you seem to switch between arguing the amount of money involved in such crimes to arguing the amount of such crimes happening. So are we talking all crime in this comparison? Just felonies? Are we judging the amount of crimes committed by either group based on the financial impact?

At this point your entire argumentation presentation is the equivalent of vomiting on the desk and attaching thumb tacks with string between various chunks.

You examples are extrapolated based on phantoms and baseless assertions. I mean come on, the differences in legal systems alone between australia and the US make the claims to crime shakey at best as actions that are illegal in australia are not always in the US, and that isn't even taking into account that tax loopholes, business breaks and other perfectly legal shenanigans exist so that people don't even need to break the law in order to screw the system and reap benefits for doing so. What is a felony tax evasion in one may not be the same in another, and without some sort of valid breakdown, your previous example still isn't anything more than saying "but look, there was 5000 criminals" when talking about a nation of many millions. The new example you tacked onto the discussion about tax havens is a little better in that regard, but again because you didn't define shit, it is just more useless ontop of old.

Am I suppose to be looking at the amount of money involved?

Am I suppose to be looking at the total amount of people connected to the banks?

Am I suppose to be looking at the 100,000 people you defined as super rich?

Am I looking at the entire suspected 100 million connected as all criminals?

And who am I suppose to be comparing them to as the "poor" in this irrelevant comparison to justify your weird statement? I don't even want to say this is comparing apples ot oranges as at least the two of those are still fruit. This is comparing apples to questioning if robots feel love.

Compared to worldwide populations of 7 billion, 100 million is barely a drop in the bucket, and that is giving you full credit that what you are citing is "evidence" that all 100 million connected to the bank havens are criminals themselves.

So are you arguing that criminality is determined by how much value they steal? It seems that is your argument but because you refused, yet again, to actually define anything, I am again looking at your regurgitation of nonsense and being expected to sift through the chunks to try to glean what your rantings actually is trying to say.

Secondly, and I was hoping you'd have bothered to actually address this last time since I thought it was important enough to ask you twice:

What does this have to do with anything about jon, how people responded to him, or what I was talking about in my first post?

runic knight:

What does this have to do with anything about jon, how people responded to him, or what I was talking about in my first post?

I'd like to know this as well because how on Earth did we go from the OP to taxes?

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here