Hey, ID Creationists!

[Fallen Prophet]

Sorry, but your arguments on this subject are biased, hand-waving posts, riddled with racism.

First of all - everyone is biased - literally everyone.

You showed your bias by trying to claim that President Trump calling COVID-19 the "China Virus" led to a rise in anti-Asian hate crimes.

And you think you can claim that I am "hand-waving" while all you are doing is trying to label a guy who used to be in the White House a racist?

I also fail to see anything in my post that is racist - perhaps you adhere to a different definition of that word than I do.

You could very well not be racist, but your arguments certainly are.

I understand that it is a common tactic of those on the left to brand anyone they disagree with as "racist" without any actual evidence.

I fail to see your evidence for such a claim.

In other words, I branded your arguments, not your person, as those things I mentioned.

A strawman then - but I still claim ad hominem.

You know very well that claiming that someone said something racist is just a fingernail shy of calling them racist.

You failed to look at the point I was making and just cried, "Racism!"

It must be so easy on the left to never have to face reality because you can use "racism" as a scapegoat.

I mean, why you felt you had to mention that the increase in anti-Asian crime has something to do with "Black on Asian crimes" is beyond me.

It supports my claim that what President Trump said did not increase the rate of anti-Asian hate crime.

Do you believe that merely mentioning race at all is somehow "racism"?

But it smacks of racism, for one example.

No - it literally doesn't.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

No mind reading skills necessary.

It's super easy to tell when Trump has just learned something new because he feels the need to tell everybody in a press conference, as though we're all just learning it to.
Remember when he first heard of Frederick Douglass?
"Frederick Douglass is an example of somebody who’s done an amazing job and is being recognized more and more, I notice.”

... Or some other gems ...

"France is America's first and oldest ally. A lot of people don't know that."

"Most people don't even know he [Abraham Lincoln] was a Republican. Right? Does anyone know? A lot of people don't know that."

"That Iraq has large oil reserves: "People don't know this about Iraq."




Everybody knows these things already.

I know for a fact that there are a lot of people in the U.S. who don't know these things.

I remember I ordered food at a Taco Bell drive thru - my total ended up being $17.76.

I made a lame dad-joke to the cashier - a young woman - saying, "That was a good year."

She was confused and asked me what I meant. And I told her that the year 1776 was a good year.

She still didn't get it - so I explained that that was the year the United States of America declared their independence from Britain.

She said, "Wow - I didn't know that."

At the next window to pick up my food I joked to the young man there about the cashier not knowing the significance of the year 1776.

He asked me what happened in 1776. I told him - he also claimed that he hadn't known that.

You can't assume that everyone knows something just because you do.

Don't underestimate the ignorance of the masses - I mean - the leftists have been working really hard at keeping them that way.

 

[SkepticThinker]

First of all - everyone is biased - literally everyone.

No kidding. But everyone doesn't make racist arguments/points.

You showed your bias by trying to claim that President Trump calling COVID-19 the "China Virus" led to a rise in anti-Asian hate crimes.

That's exactly what happened.

Then you tried to make some bizarre point about it being "Blacks on Asians" crimes or something/

And you think you can claim that I am "hand-waving" while all you are doing is trying to label a guy who used to be in the White House a racist?

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ...

I also fail to see anything in my post that is racist - perhaps you adhere to a different definition of that word than I do.

I've pointed an example out to you twice now.

I understand that it is a common tactic of those on the left to brand anyone they disagree with as "racist" without any actual evidence.

You have no idea where I sit on the political spectrum.

This is a claim often uttered by people making racist arguments when they get upset when someone points out they've made a racist argument.
Don't make racist arguments if you don't want to be called out for making racist arguments.

I fail to see your evidence for such a claim.

I've given you an example twice now.

A strawman then - but I still claim ad hominem.

Strawman? Umm, nope.

Some of your arguments/points have a racist tone to them. Sorry. Why feel the need to assert that the rise in anti-Asian crime has something to do with "Black on Asian" attacks?

You know very well that claiming that someone said something racist is just a fingernail shy of calling them racist.

All I can say is, if you don't want to be called racist and if you don't want your arguments to be called racist, then don't make racist arguments.

You failed to look at the point I was making and just cried, "Racism!"

Oh, so what point were you making about "Black on Asian" crime?

It must be so easy on the left to never have to face reality because you can use "racism" as a scapegoat.

You are obviously deeply entrenched in your political beliefs and it shows.

It supports my claim that what President Trump said did not increase the rate of anti-Asian hate crime.

And how does it do that, exactly?

Do you believe that merely mentioning race at all is somehow "racism"?

Nope. Please stop imposing your political biases onto me.

No - it literally doesn't.

Yeah, it does.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I know for a fact that there are a lot of people in the U.S. who don't know these things.

I remember I ordered food at a Taco Bell drive thru - my total ended up being $17.76.

I made a lame dad-joke to the cashier - a young woman - saying, "That was a good year."

She was confused and asked me what I meant. And I told her that the year 1776 was a good year.

She still didn't get it - so I explained that that was the year the United States of America declared their independence from Britain.

She said, "Wow - I didn't know that."

At the next window to pick up my food I joked to the young man there about the cashier not knowing the significance of the year 1776.

He asked me what happened in 1776. I told him - he also claimed that he hadn't known that.

You can't assume that everyone knows something just because you do.

Don't underestimate the ignorance of the masses - I mean - the leftists have been working really hard at keeping them that way.

Doesn't change the obvious fact that when Trump learns something new, he seems to think that everyone is going to learn something new when he passes it onto them too.

You are way too deeply entrenched in your political views. I mean, can't you make a post without mentioning "leftists" and blaming them for all the world's problems? Let me guess, you're a Tucker Carlson/Laura Ingram fan?

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Wow - do you know what "circular reasoning" is? Begging the question? petitio principii?

All are logical fallacies - and that is literally all you have presented in this post.

No kidding. But everyone doesn't make racist arguments/points.

You are arguing from the position that I have made a racist statement or argument - but you have yet to prove that.

You claimed that what I said was racist - then when I asked you to prove it - you pointed back to what I had said and claimed that it was racist as your "proof".

You are restating not proving your claim.

It's like when people ask Christians why they believe God exists and they say, "God exists because the Bible says so - and the Bible is true because God says so."

That's exactly what happened.

Again - you are using a logical fallacy.

Then you tried to make some bizarre point about it being "Blacks on Asians" crimes or something/

Being a Trump supporter during his Presidency helped see the BS in the MSM.

They claimed that his calling COVID-19 the "China Virus" was racist and that it would cause his base to rise up against Asian Americans.

However - the majority of anti-Asian "hate crimes" tended to happen in heavily Democrat cities and the majority of them were committed by African Americans.

This didn't stop the MSM from claiming that those "white supremacists" in "MAGA country" were responsible for the rise.

And they didn't report the cases by number - but rather by percentage - because saying "an increase of 200%" is way more sensational and scarier than saying "an increase of 10".

They even loosened the definition of what was constituted a "hate crime" to bolster the numbers - and that is easy to see by comparing the number of claimed "hate crimes" to actual prosecutions of "hate crimes".

My point was not "bizarre" - but rather "on point".

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ...

Irrelevant to my point.

I could care less if you believed that President Trump was racist - but you accused me of "hand-waving" - while all you were doing was trying to smear a guy who isn't President anymore.

Which is hand-waving.

I was pointing out your hypocrisy.

I've pointed an example out to you twice now.

Logical fallacy.

You have no idea where I sit on the political spectrum.

No - I definitely have an idea - from the arguments you have made to the tactics you have employed.

This is a claim often uttered by people making racist arguments when they get upset when someone points out they've made a racist argument.

Logical fallacy.

I feel kind of like Brett Kavanaugh - idiots believed Ford's allegations even though she did not have a single shred of evidence.

There was actually a lot of evidence against her claims.

We could rewrite what you said above - but talk about rape instead of racism,

"This is a claim often uttered by people who rape when they get upset when someone accuses them of rape."

It's circular reasoning. Begging the question. petitio principii. A logical fallacy.

So yeah - people who get falsely accused of rape tend to get upset - same as those who are falsely accused of being or saying something racist.

If you want to make such a claim - you need evidence.

Don't make racist arguments if you don't want to be called out for making racist arguments.

Logical fallacy.

I've given you an example twice now.

Logical fallacy.

Strawman? Umm, nope.

You labelled what I said "racist" (with no evidence) in order to burn that down - rather than acknowledge my actual argument.

Some of your arguments/points have a racist tone to them. Sorry.

"Tone"? What the **** does that mean?

All you have done is claimed that what I said was racist simply because I mentioned Black on Asian crime.

"Tone"? Wtf?

Why feel the need to assert that the rise in anti-Asian crime has something to do with "Black on Asian" attacks?

It proves that "white supremacists" in "MAGA country" aren't the cause.

All I can say is, if you don't want to be called racist and if you don't want your arguments to be called racist, then don't make racist arguments.

Logical fallacy.

Oh, so what point were you making about "Black on Asian" crime?

Other than what I said above?

That you don't know what you are talking about.

You are obviously deeply entrenched in your political beliefs and it shows.

First "tone" and now "deeply entrenched"?

Yes - I have political beliefs - and I am both willing and able to defend them.

I'm glad it shows.

And how does it do that, exactly?

Nope. Please stop imposing your political biases onto me.

Asking a question does not "impose" anything on you.

And your answer is weird - because all I did was mention the race of the majority of perpetrators of anti-Asian "hate crimes" - and you labelled what I said "racist".

So - was it the fact that I mentioned the race of the perpetrators that caused you to label what I said "racist"?

That can't be it - because you mentioned the race of the victims - and that didn't make what you said "racist" - did it?

I bet that if the majority of perpetrators of anti-Asian "hate crimes" were White - you wouldn't think it was racist of me to point that out.

Would you?

Yeah, it does.

Logical fallacy.

Doesn't change the obvious fact that when Trump learns something new, he seems to think that everyone is going to learn something new when he passes it onto them too.

Logical fallacy.

You claimed that these facts were "new" or "just learned" by President Trump - with no evidence to support your claim.

And now here you are arguing from the position that the unproven claim you made has somehow magically been proven.

It's just more of your circular reasoning. Begging the question. petitio principii. A logical fallacy.

You are way too deeply entrenched in your political views.

Logical fallacy.

Not only have you yet to prove that anyone can be "too deeply entrenched" into any belief or viewpoint - but you haven't supplied whatever metric you used to come to the conclusion that I am "deeply" anything.

All you can prove is that I am more to the right than you are.

I mean, can't you make a post without mentioning "leftists" and blaming them for all the world's problems?

Audie and I were talking about politics both local and international.

I have made many posts without mentioning "leftists" and I don't blame them for all the world's problems.

Let me guess, you're a Tucker Carlson/Laura Ingram fan?

I have seen some great clips from both of them - but I don't watch much Fox News TBH.

Now who is the one assuming things about where the other sits on the political spectrum?

Didn't you call me out for doing something similar earlier?

Are certain things you criticize others for only okay when you do them?

Hypocrisy?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Wow - do you know what "circular reasoning" is? Begging the question? petitio principii?
All are logical fallacies - and that is literally all you have presented in this post.

You are arguing from the position that I have made a racist statement or argument - but you have yet to prove that.

I gave you an example no less than 3 times in that last post.

You claimed that what I said was racist - then when I asked you to prove it - you pointed back to what I had said and claimed that it was racist as your "proof".

Yep, I said your argument was racist.

Then I gave you an example of what I considered to be a racist argument. You have yet to address it.

You are restating not proving your claim.

Nope, I provided an example you haven’t addressed yet.

It's like when people ask Christians why they believe God exists and they say, "God exists because the Bible says so - and the Bible is true because God says so."

It’s nothing like that.

I said you made a racist argument, and then gave an example of something I considered to be a racist argument. You haven’t addressed it yet.

Again - you are using a logical fallacy.

Nope.

The question now becomes, why won’t you address the example I provided?

Being a Trump supporter during his Presidency helped see the BS in the MSM.

They claimed that his calling COVID-19 the "China Virus" was racist and that it would cause his base to rise up against Asian Americans.

It did cause that.

However - the majority of anti-Asian "hate crimes" tended to happen in heavily Democrat cities and the majority of them were committed by African Americans.

And there’s the racist part. Assuming what you say is even true in the first place, why feel the need to point out that you think such crimes were “committed by African Americans?” What difference does that make? The fact of the matter is that there was an increase in anti-Asian crime in the US last year. The only thing these points add to the discussion is racism and partisanship. Also, just because something took place in “heavily Democrat cities” doesn’t mean they were committed by Democrats. Many highly populated US cities are “heavily Democrat cities” but it doesn’t follow that every single person living there is a Democrat or that every person who committed a crime there is a Democrat. That would be a silly assumption to make.

This didn't stop the MSM from claiming that those "white supremacists" in "MAGA country" were responsible for the rise.

The FBI, the CIA and the Department of Homeland Security all say there has been in increase in domestic terrorism on the part of white supremacists over the last few years.

And they didn't report the cases by number - but rather by percentage - because saying "an increase of 200%" is way more sensational and scarier than saying "an increase of 10".

That’s how they report pretty much everything, because it’s easier for people to understand.

They even loosened the definition of what was constituted a "hate crime" to bolster the numbers - and that is easy to see by comparing the number of claimed "hate crimes" to actual prosecutions of "hate crimes".

Sure they did.

My point was not "bizarre" - but rather "on point".

It was totally out in left field.

“On point,” how? How is pointing out that you think the increase in anti-Asian crimes across the US were committed by African Americans add anything pertinent to this discussion?

Irrelevant to my point.

It’s relevant to my point.

I could care less if you believed that President Trump was racist - but you accused me of "hand-waving" - while all you were doing was trying to smear a guy who isn't President anymore.

He’s done plenty to smear himself. He doesn’t need my help.

Which is hand-waving.

Nope.

I was pointing out your hypocrisy.

Well you didn’t do a very good job because I don’t know what you’re talking about.

Logical fallacy.

It’s a logical fallacy to tell you that I provided an example?
Nope, it’s not.

No - I definitely have an idea - from the arguments you have made to the tactics you have employed.

No you don’t. You’re just so deeply entrenched in your political bias that you think you can.

It seems to me, all you’re actually doing with that is dodging the points being made.

Logical fallacy.

I’m pretty convinced at this point that you don’t know what a logical fallacy is.

I feel kind of like Brett Kavanaugh - idiots believed Ford's allegations even though she did not have a single shred of evidence.

She had some, actually and Kavanaugh provided the rest with his little party calendar he brought in that indicated he was at a party on the date she claimed with his pals PJ and Squee. Oh, and he loves beer! :eyeroll:

There was actually a lot of evidence against her claims.

Nah.

We could rewrite what you said above - but talk about rape instead of racism,


It's circular reasoning. Begging the question. petitio principii. A logical fallacy.

So yeah - people who get falsely accused of rape tend to get upset - same as those who are falsely accused of being or saying something racist.

If you want to make such a claim - you need evidence.

Please. I gave you the example no less than 3 times in my last post.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[SkepticThinker]

Logical fallacy.

Logical fallacy.

Nope.

You labelled what I said "racist" (with no evidence) in order to burn that down - rather than acknowledge my actual argument.

No evidence? I gave you the argument I thought was racist.

"Tone"? What the **** does that mean?

I already told you.

All you have done is claimed that what I said was racist simply because I mentioned Black on Asian crime.

"Tone"? Wtf?

You have yet to explain why you brought it up or why it’s pertinent to the discussion.

It proves that "white supremacists" in "MAGA country" aren't the cause.

It does?

There are no MAGA people living in big cities or travelling to big cities?

Logical fallacy.

Nope.

Oh hey, take a look at this …

“White people made up more than 55 percent of the offenders across the board, the FBI said, a contrast to what viral clips perpetuated in the wake of anti-Asian violence.

“The way that the media is covering and the way that people are understanding anti-Asian hate at this moment, in some ways, draws attention to these long-standing anti-Asian biases in U.S. society,” Janelle Wong, a professor of American Studies at the University of Maryland, told NBC Asian America in June. “But the racist kind of tropes that come along with it — especially that it’s predominantly Black people attacking Asian Americans who are elderly — there’s not really an empirical basis in that.”

Anti-Asian hate crimes rose 73% last year, updated FBI data says

Hmmmm… who does that sound like?

Other than what I said above?

That you don't know what you are talking about.

First "tone" and now "deeply entrenched"?

Yes - I have political beliefs - and I am both willing and able to defend them.[/quote]

Yep, deeply entrenched. How many times have you mentioned “leftists” just in this thread alone?

I'm glad it shows.

Asking a question does not "impose" anything on you.

I didn’t say it did. Constantly calling me a “leftist” does though.

And your answer is weird - because all I did was mention the race of the majority of perpetrators of anti-Asian "hate crimes" - and you labelled what I said "racist".

Yes, all you did was mention the race of who you thought were the majority of perpetrators of anti-Asian hate crimes and you’re wondering why I think it’s racist? Well, as it turns out, they were mostly white people who committed those crimes. And as it also turns out, crimes against black people and crimes against latino people have also increased.

So - was it the fact that I mentioned the race of the perpetrators that caused you to label what I said "racist"?

That can't be it - because you mentioned the race of the victims - and that didn't make what you said "racist" - did it?

It’s because they are the ones under attack, that you can state their race, especially when they’re being targeted. Bringing up the race of the perpetrators serves what purpose, exactly? Does it make the anti-Asian crimes less heinous? No. So then what?

I bet that if the majority of perpetrators of anti-Asian "hate crimes" were White - you wouldn't think it was racist of me to point that out.

They are, but it really doesn’t matter. The point is that there has been an increase in crimes against Asian people, which itself is racist because it’s blaming an entire race of people for a virus.

Would you?
Logical fallacy
Logical fallacy.

You claimed that these facts were "new" or "just learned" by President Trump - with no evidence to support your claim.

I said it seems that way and gave several examples.

And now here you are arguing from the position that the unproven claim you made has somehow magically been proven.

It's just more of your circular reasoning. Begging the question. petitio principii. A logical fallacy.

Logical fallacy.

Sounds like you need to brush up on your logical fallacies if you think somebody providing an example to back up their claim is a logical fallacy.

Not only have you yet to prove that anyone can be "too deeply entrenched" into any belief or viewpoint - but you haven't supplied whatever metric you used to come to the conclusion that I am "deeply" anything.

That’s funny. I don’t have to prove that people can be deeply entrenched in their political views. Especially when it’s being demonstrated before our very eyes.

All you can prove is that I am more to the right than you are.

I’m not the one fixated on political leanings and so I’m not interested in proving anything of the sort.

Audie and I were talking about politics both local and international.

I have made many posts without mentioning "leftists" and I don't blame them for all the world's problems.

And you’ve made a ton where you did mention it.

I have seen some great clips from both of them - but I don't watch much Fox News TBH.

Then it’s pretty weird how you parrot a lot of their talking points.

Now who is the one assuming things about where the other sits on the political spectrum?

Are certain things you criticize others for only okay when you do them?

Hypocrisy?

My observation is based on your parroting of a lot of their talking points.


Are you saying Fox News is politically biased?

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Interesting - so it appears that you like to start responding to someone's post before actually reading their post.

I clearly addressed your "example" - so I am going to ignore all the times when you claimed that I didn't.

And you still don't seem to understand the concept of circular reasoning - because your "example" is still you restating your case and not proving it.

You saying, "This is racist!" - and then pointing to your "example" - doesn't at all prove that the "example" is racist - it just proves that you believe that it is racist.

You have every right to believe that - but you can't share your belief as evidence of your belief - that would be like a Christian quoting the Bible to prove that God exists.

So - I am going to ignore your numerous claims that I did not address your "example" as well as your claims that the "example" you provided was proof of racism.

I addressed it and it is not proof of anything.

Nope.

Oh hey, take a look at this …

“White people made up more than 55 percent of the offenders across the board, the FBI said, a contrast to what viral clips perpetuated in the wake of anti-Asian violence.

“The way that the media is covering and the way that people are understanding anti-Asian hate at this moment, in some ways, draws attention to these long-standing anti-Asian biases in U.S. society,” Janelle Wong, a professor of American Studies at the University of Maryland, told NBC Asian America in June. “But the racist kind of tropes that come along with it — especially that it’s predominantly Black people attacking Asian Americans who are elderly — there’s not really an empirical basis in that.”

Anti-Asian hate crimes rose 73% last year, updated FBI data says

Hmmmm… who does that sound like?

I'm going a little out of order because I just couldn't resist this little gem - which are sources that you linked but didn't seem to read for yourself.

First off - I just want to point out that we have been discussing "hate crimes" not "hate incidents".

The AAPI is often mentioned as a source in the first link - and it claims that there was an increase in "hate incident reports" - yet the vast majority of the "reported incidents" (80.2%) were not "hate crimes" at all.

And they don't even share what their metrics are for "hate incident" - does any negative thing that happens to an Asian - whether or not it was motivated by the victim's race - constitute a "hate incident" to them?

I remember some time ago I went into a Chinese restaurant to pick up some take-out - and I forgot my mask in the car - the employee that was at the entrance (I assume she was Chinese) said that it was fine - because I was just picking up the food that was literally sitting by the front door and that I wasn't coming inside.

However - another employee (I assume she was Chinese as well) came out from the kitchen and starting yelling at me - that I was stupid for not wearing a mask - however I quickly pointed out that she herself wasn't wearing a mask (she wasn't ) and that she was being a hypocrite.

Anyways - I assume that the AAPI would consider that a "hate incident" if that lady had decided to report it - even though nothing I said or did had anything to do with her race.

I also remember an incident where a friend of mine - an old white guy - was berated by a Mexican lady where he worked because she claimed that he was "thinking something racist".

These organizations that just accept the validity of what people report could have - and probably don't have - anything to do with the actual motivations of the supposed "offenders" - and they might not even be "hate incidents" or even "incidents" at all.

So - in the first link you shared nothing was mentioned about White people, "offenders" or "viral clips" of any kind.

The 55% mentioned in that link was about a Pew Research Center poll that claimed that "55 percent of respondents supported limiting Chinese students' study in the U.S."

The same poll claimed that 55% of respondents claimed that they viewed China as a "competitor" to the U.S. - so it makes perfect sense that those same 55% would want to limit student Visas to citizens of China.

Now - you may believe that that is "racist" - but I and other reasonable people don't - because we don't see everything through the prism of race.

For example - being critical of the actions or position taken by the nation of Israel - does not make anyone anti-Semitic.

Someone thinking that Russia presents a clear and present danger to the security of the U.S. - is not being racist against Russians.

People thinking that China or the CCP is a "competitor" or even an "enemy" of the U.S. - is not being racist against Chinese people.

President Trump claiming that COVID came from China is not being racist against Asians or a call to violence against Asians.

Again - that 55% mentioned in the link had nothing to do with "viral clips", White people or offenders of any kind.

Also - the article even claimed that the recent increase in "hate incident" reporting could be linked to people simply being allowed back outside again after the lockdowns.

It only looks like an "increase" because people were locked inside for over a year.

It's kinda like bumbling Joe Biden claiming that he is responsible for "job growth" when all he has done is allowed people to go back to work.

You can't take credit for "job growth" when you forced people to stay home in the first place just like you can't claim a massive increase in "hate incidents" by comparing a time when no one was outside to the time when they were allowed to go back out and interact with one another.

Now - the second link - about the FBI data - is very unclear and possibly intentionally misleading in its reporting.

It claimed that "Law enforcement agencies submitted incident reports involving 8,263 criminal incidents and 11,129 related offenses as being motivated by bias toward race, ethnicity, ancestry, religion, sexual orientation, disability, gender, and gender identity."

Which means - only the 8,263 "criminal incidents" could possibly be constituted as "hate crimes" while the 11,129 were merely "related offenses" - not "hate crimes" or crimes at all.

Then it claimed that, "There were 8,052 single-bias incidents involving 11,126 victims."

Notice this says "incidents" - not "criminal incidents" or "hate crimes" - and that "61.8% of victims were targeted because of the offenders’ race/ethnicity/ancestry bias".

To contrast - when it mentioned "multiple-bias" incidents - rather than the "single-bias" incidents I just mentioned it claimed, "There were 211 multiple-bias hate crime incidents that involved 346 victims." (Bold and italics added)

Notice the difference?

Both "single-bias" and "multiple-bias" incidents were reported - but only the "multiple-bias" incidents were described as "hate crime incidents".

This report then goes on to explain the difference between "known" and "unknown" offenders and that of the 6,780 "known offenders" - 55.1% of them were White.

Now - what the report does not tell you is how these people were "offenders" - were these 55.1% White "offenders" guilty of committing "hate crimes" or just "related offenses" or a mix of both?

It also does not tell us the breakdown of the victims - but rather all "criminal incidents" and "related offenses" which were "motivated by bias toward race, ethnicity, ancestry, religion, sexual orientation, disability, gender, and gender identity".

This report does not claim that White people are responsible for 55.1% of anti-Asian "hate crimes".

All it claims is that 55.1% of the "known offenders" of both "criminal incidents" and "related offenses" which were "motivated by bias toward race, ethnicity, ancestry, religion, sexual orientation, disability, gender, and gender identity" were White.

And considering that White people make up approximately 61.6% of the population of the U.S. they are actually underrepresented as offenders of "hate crimes" or "related offenses".

In contrast - this FBI report claimed that Black or African American people made up 21.2% of "known offenders" - while Black or African American people make up approximately 13.4% of the U.S. population - meaning they are overrepresented as offenders of "hate crimes" or "related offenses".

Meaning that - according to these statistics - Black or African American people are approximately 77% more likely to engage in "hate crimes" or "related offenses" than White people.

What does that sound like?

I didn't have to go into such detail because the portion of the article that you quoted from said, "White people made up more than 55 percent of the offenders across the board" (Bold and italics added)

So - even your original claim had nothing to do with Anti-Asian "hate crimes" - and the article doesn't even claim that these White people had committed any "hate crimes" at all - only that they were "offenders" - which could mean they committed either "hate crimes" or "related offenses".

I wonder why it didn't give us a breakdown?

The article doesn't even share where it got that statistic about anti-Asian "hate crimes" increasing by 73% - because that wasn't mentioned in the FBI report they supplied.

The article claimed, "An online breakdown confirmed what scholars, activists and community leaders have known for a long time — that anti-Asian incidents took a dramatic upswing during the pandemic." (Bold and italics added)

What is an "online breakdown"?

Is that the same as saying, "It says on Reddit..." or "People on Twitter are claiming..." or "My friend who knows a guy who..."?

And again - why did they go with the percentage over the supposed number?

The headline says "Anti-Asian hate crimes rose 73% last year, updated FBI data says" - yet the article claims that "The FBI reported 279 hate crimes against Asians in 2020, compared to 161 in 2019."

(I don't know why they mentioned the FBI at all at this point considering that they used their reliable "online breakdown" to word their headline)

Which means - out of the 11,126 supposed victims of single-bias "incidents" and 346 supposed victims of "multiple-bias hate crime incidents" - there were only 279 reported anti-Asian "hate crimes"?

Anti-Asian "hate crimes" make up only approximately 2.4% of the single-bias "incidents" and multiple bias "hate crime incidents".

That means there was an increase of only 118 reported anti-Asian "hate crimes" out of the many millions of Asians who live in the U.S. throughout the entire year of 2020?

Of course - I'd want that number to be zero - along with all other crimes - but that's a drop in the bucket - an increase of 73% sounds so scary - but an increase of 118 - which is not so much.

So - this "sounds like" you saw a headline that confirmed your bias and you quoted from a source without even reading it.

The sources you quoted from are based on anonymous sources, wordplay about "incidents", "online breakdowns" and FBI stats that they don't supply a source for.

You don't know what you are talking about, and you don't care about facts or the truth - you only care about your bias.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

It did cause that.

You need to prove that then.

Define what his "base" is and then prove that they were responsible for the anti-Asian hate crimes.

Don't rely on anonymous phoned-in reports - but actual cases where the identities of both the victim and offender are known.

And since when did Black people who live in Democrat cities constitute his "base"?

And there’s the racist part.

Facts cannot be racist.

Racism is the belief a person is inferior or superior to another because of their race and racist people are those who discriminate or who are prejudiced against someone because of their race.

Racism is an opinion based on falsehoods - because no one is inferior or superior to anyone else because of their race.

The opinion that someone should be treated differently because of their race is a racist opinion based on falsehoods.

Facts about who is committing the majority of anti-Asian "hate crimes" and where cannot be racist - because facts cannot be racist.

Assuming what you say is even true in the first place, why feel the need to point out that you think such crimes were “committed by African Americans?” What difference does that make?

Claiming that Blacks or African Americans in heavily Democratic cities are committing anti-Asian "hate crimes" because of what President Trump said is like trying to claim that how atheists decide to treat homosexuals is based on what the Pope says.

Blacks or African Americans do not make up President Trump's base.

The fact of the matter is that there was an increase in anti-Asian crime in the US last year.

Supposedly so - but there have been increases and decreases of reported anti-Asian "hate crimes" for decades.

There has always been an "ebb and flow".

The only thing these points add to the discussion is racism and partisanship.

Then that means that your initial claim was racist and partisan - not mine - because I was responding to your initial claim.

You claimed that President Trump was responsible for the supposed increase of "hate crimes" against Anti-Asians because his comments inspired his base to commit them.

Also, just because something took place in “heavily Democrat cities” doesn’t mean they were committed by Democrats.

Are you being serious?

Your entire premise is based on the idea that President Trump and his base is responsible for the supposed increase in anti-Asian "hate crimes".

Yet - you completely ignore who are committing these supposed crimes and where they occurred.

You don't believe that is relevant information in relation to your initial claim?

And now even if you could somehow prove that these types of crimes were only being committed in "MAGA country" - I could just as easily try to explain it away like you by saying, "Just because something took place in "MAGA country" doesn't mean they were committed by Trump supporters."

Many highly populated US cities are “heavily Democrat cities” but it doesn’t follow that every single person living there is a Democrat or that every person who committed a crime there is a Democrat. That would be a silly assumption to make.

Sillier than claiming that President Trump is responsible for the supposed increase in anti-Asian "hate crime"?

The FBI, the CIA and the Department of Homeland Security all say there has been in increase in domestic terrorism on the part of white supremacists over the last few years.

Let me guess - the media claims that white supremacist domestic acts of terror have increased 300% in the last year!

From 1 to 4! That's 300%!

How many billions of dollars of property damage was inflicted by white supremacists over the last few years?

How many deaths? Police causalities? How many "autonomous zones" were declared? How many public monuments destroyed?

And how many of their violent actions have been encouraged by the MSM, big tech, social media and the Democratic Party?

Yeah - we gotta watch out for those white supremacists.

That’s how they report pretty much everything, because it’s easier for people to understand.

No - it's misleading. Propaganda.

You have to go a few paragraphs in to see the actual numbers - but most people - like you - don't read the actual articles.

Sure they did.

Yep - the AAPI and that FBI report are prime examples.

It was totally out in left field.

“On point,” how? How is pointing out that you think the increase in anti-Asian crimes across the US were committed by African Americans add anything pertinent to this discussion?

That Trump's base isn't responsible - which is your claim.

It’s relevant to my point.

Yes - and as I said - claiming that President Trump is racist is "hand-waving" - which is what you tried to disparage me of doing - which proves that you are a hypocrite.

He’s done plenty to smear himself. He doesn’t need my help.

His calling COVID the "China Virus" isn't racist - like at all.

Nope.

Then you don't know what "hand-waving" means.

Well you didn’t do a very good job because I don’t know what you’re talking about.

How is your lack of comprehensive abilities my fault?

It’s a logical fallacy to tell you that I provided an example?
Nope, it’s not.

Claiming that your "example" is proof of racism is a logical fallacy - yes it is.

No you don’t. You’re just so deeply entrenched in your political bias that you think you can.

It seems to me, all you’re actually doing with that is dodging the points being made.

The only "point" you have been making is, "What you said is racist! Look at what you said! Racist!"

I’m pretty convinced at this point that you don’t know what a logical fallacy is.

This is funny.

She had some, actually and Kavanaugh provided the rest with his little party calendar he brought in that indicated he was at a party on the date she claimed with his pals PJ and Squee. Oh, and he loves beer! :eyeroll:

What?

Her knowing the date that he attended a party is not "evidence" of anything.

She could not recall where the party was located and no one - not even her own friends - claimed that she attended that same party - or that she had ever even been to the place where the party occurred - or that she had ever even met Brett Kavanaugh. Ever!

She literally had zero evidence.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Nah.

This is exactly how the MSM like their viewers - vacant between the ears.

It does?

There are no MAGA people living in big cities or travelling to big cities?

Prove it. Show me the cases.

Yep, deeply entrenched. How many times have you mentioned “leftists” just in this thread alone?

My knowing where certain claims and arguments stem from means that I am "entrenched"?

I am informed.

I didn’t say it did. Constantly calling me a “leftist” does though.

I recall claiming that you are using the tactics and arguments of "the left" - but I don't recall calling you a "leftist".

I suppose it's similar to you claiming that what I said was "racist" - not that I was personally racist.

However - you claiming that what I said was racist - in order to feel no need to address my point - is evidence that you were employing "leftist" tactics.

So - I have actual evidence that you use leftist arguments and tactics - while you are still puttering around trying to prove that I said anything remotely racist.

Yes, all you did was mention the race of who you thought were the majority of perpetrators of anti-Asian hate crimes and you’re wondering why I think it’s racist? Well, as it turns out, they were mostly white people who committed those crimes. And as it also turns out, crimes against black people and crimes against latino people have also increased.

Sorry - but nothing you have shared proves that White people committed the majority of anti-Asian "hate crimes".

What you shared actually proved that it is more likely for Black or African American people to commit "hate crimes" than White people.

Way to try and move that goal post though - to pan out from anti-Asian "hate crimes" - which was the topic of our discussion - and trying to move it to all "hate crimes".

Another classic tactic employed by those on "the left".

And it is true that crime is increasing - unfortunately - which is what people on the Right said would happen as the country screamed to defund the police.

And the vast majority of crimes against minorities is against other minorities - Black on Black and Latino on Latino - not White on Black or White on Latino.

That has always been true.

It’s because they are the ones under attack, that you can state their race, especially when they’re being targeted.

You don't believe that the race of the offender matters?

Bringing up the race of the perpetrators serves what purpose, exactly?

To hopefully discover the motivation for the hatred and possibly solve the issue.

Does it make the anti-Asian crimes less heinous? No. So then what?

It can help those who care about truth and justice to actually solve problems - rather than just race-bait and hand-wave.

The only reason you don't care - in the moment - about the race of the perpetrators is because it is politically expedient for you not to focus on it.

Anytime a White person does anything - like Kyle Rittenhouse - their race is all that matters and that's what everyone keeps talking about.

It's the same reason why the MSM kept claiming that a "red SUV" ran over a bunch of people in Waukesha - rather than the race of the driver.

It is politically expedient for the MSM, big tech, social media, the Democrats - and you - to only focus on the race of the perpetrators when they are White.

It doesn't help anyone - but it does push your political narrative.

They are, but it really doesn’t matter.

Nothing you have shared proves that - sorry.

The point is that there has been an increase in crimes against Asian people, which itself is racist because it’s blaming an entire race of people for a virus.

That is simply your opinion.

You have no way of knowing why "hate crimes" against Asians has increased.

You can blame the virus or President Trump - sure - but there have been other times when the rate of anti-Asian "hate crimes" have increased - so what or who are you going to blame for those?

We can't blame Bernie Sanders for what happened to Scalise - just like we can't blame President Trump.

I said it seems that way and gave several examples.

And you claim that I am the one who doesn't know what logical fallacies are! LOL!

You are just stating your opinion as if it were fact again and pointing back to your opinion as if it were "proof" when your opinion is challenged.

Sounds like you need to brush up on your logical fallacies if you think somebody providing an example to back up their claim is a logical fallacy.

You provided examples of Trump talking about various things - not that he had just learned about them - which is your claim.

This hurts it's so funny.

Then it’s pretty weird how you parrot a lot of their talking points.

They must also be informed individuals.

And this is rich coming from you!

You don't even read the sources you "parrot".

Are you saying Fox News is politically biased?

Of course, it is - they admit as much.

They don't claim to be "balanced" like CNN - but then they are anything but.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

For years now we've been hearing ID creationists go on and on about ways to "detect design", with some prominent IDC's claiming to have tools, "filters", and the like (e.g., Bill Dembski).

Well, given the current COVID pandemic and the questions about the origin of the virus (i.e., whether it was created in a lab), we have an obvious challenge.

Why aren't ID creationists applying their tools and methods to the COVID virus to help us figure out if it was deliberately designed in a lab by "intelligent agents"? Isn't this a perfect opportunity to show their stuff, to put their claims to the test? The sequences are publicly available, so what's stopping them?

Or........now stick with me here......maybe all that was just a bunch crap?

I have been looking, but I am still finding nothing on those ID methodologies being applied to Covid-19. I wonder why. Perhaps the ID people have been so busy developing their methodologies that the pandemic has escaped them. That must be it. Or their filters work so well they are getting no information at all.

I am confident Bill, Stephen, Michael and the whole gang will be along shortly to announce their findings. They are just waiting for the right moment.

This one.

No.

This one.

No.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Interesting - so it appears that you like to start responding to someone's post before actually reading their post.

I clearly addressed your "example" - so I am going to ignore all the times when you claimed that I didn't.

And you still don't seem to understand the concept of circular reasoning - because your "example" is still you restating your case and not proving it.

You saying, "This is racist!" - and then pointing to your "example" - doesn't at all prove that the "example" is racist - it just proves that you believe that it is racist.

You have every right to believe that - but you can't share your belief as evidence of your belief - that would be like a Christian quoting the Bible to prove that God exists.

So - I am going to ignore your numerous claims that I did not address your "example" as well as your claims that the "example" you provided was proof of racism.

I addressed it and it is not proof of anything.

I'm going a little out of order because I just couldn't resist this little gem - which are sources that you linked but didn't seem to read for yourself.

First off - I just want to point out that we have been discussing "hate crimes" not "hate incidents".

The AAPI is often mentioned as a source in the first link - and it claims that there was an increase in "hate incident reports" - yet the vast majority of the "reported incidents" (80.2%) were not "hate crimes" at all.

And they don't even share what their metrics are for "hate incident" - does any negative thing that happens to an Asian - whether or not it was motivated by the victim's race - constitute a "hate incident" to them?

I remember some time ago I went into a Chinese restaurant to pick up some take-out - and I forgot my mask in the car - the employee that was at the entrance (I assume she was Chinese) said that it was fine - because I was just picking up the food that was literally sitting by the front door and that I wasn't coming inside.

However - another employee (I assume she was Chinese as well) came out from the kitchen and starting yelling at me - that I was stupid for not wearing a mask - however I quickly pointed out that she herself wasn't wearing a mask (she wasn't ) and that she was being a hypocrite.

Anyways - I assume that the AAPI would consider that a "hate incident" if that lady had decided to report it - even though nothing I said or did had anything to do with her race.

I also remember an incident where a friend of mine - an old white guy - was berated by a Mexican lady where he worked because she claimed that he was "thinking something racist".

These organizations that just accept the validity of what people report could have - and probably don't have - anything to do with the actual motivations of the supposed "offenders" - and they might not even be "hate incidents" or even "incidents" at all.

So - in the first link you shared nothing was mentioned about White people, "offenders" or "viral clips" of any kind.

The 55% mentioned in that link was about a Pew Research Center poll that claimed that "55 percent of respondents supported limiting Chinese students' study in the U.S."

The same poll claimed that 55% of respondents claimed that they viewed China as a "competitor" to the U.S. - so it makes perfect sense that those same 55% would want to limit student Visas to citizens of China.

Now - you may believe that that is "racist" - but I and other reasonable people don't - because we don't see everything through the prism of race.

For example - being critical of the actions or position taken by the nation of Israel - does not make anyone anti-Semitic.

Someone thinking that Russia presents a clear and present danger to the security of the U.S. - is not being racist against Russians.

People thinking that China or the CCP is a "competitor" or even an "enemy" of the U.S. - is not being racist against Chinese people.

President Trump claiming that COVID came from China is not being racist against Asians or a call to violence against Asians.

Again - that 55% mentioned in the link had nothing to do with "viral clips", White people or offenders of any kind.

Also - the article even claimed that the recent increase in "hate incident" reporting could be linked to people simply being allowed back outside again after the lockdowns.

It only looks like an "increase" because people were locked inside for over a year.

It's kinda like bumbling Joe Biden claiming that he is responsible for "job growth" when all he has done is allowed people to go back to work.

You can't take credit for "job growth" when you forced people to stay home in the first place just like you can't claim a massive increase in "hate incidents" by comparing a time when no one was outside to the time when they were allowed to go back out and interact with one another.

Now - the second link - about the FBI data - is very unclear and possibly intentionally misleading in its reporting.

It claimed that "Law enforcement agencies submitted incident reports involving 8,263 criminal incidents and 11,129 related offenses as being motivated by bias toward race, ethnicity, ancestry, religion, sexual orientation, disability, gender, and gender identity."

Which means - only the 8,263 "criminal incidents" could possibly be constituted as "hate crimes" while the 11,129 were merely "related offenses" - not "hate crimes" or crimes at all.

Then it claimed that, "There were 8,052 single-bias incidents involving 11,126 victims."

Notice this says "incidents" - not "criminal incidents" or "hate crimes" - and that "61.8% of victims were targeted because of the offenders’ race/ethnicity/ancestry bias".

To contrast - when it mentioned "multiple-bias" incidents - rather than the "single-bias" incidents I just mentioned it claimed, "There were 211 multiple-bias hate crime incidents that involved 346 victims." (Bold and italics added)

Notice the difference?

Both "single-bias" and "multiple-bias" incidents were reported - but only the "multiple-bias" incidents were described as "hate crime incidents".

This report then goes on to explain the difference between "known" and "unknown" offenders and that of the 6,780 "known offenders" - 55.1% of them were White.

Now - what the report does not tell you is how these people were "offenders" - were these 55.1% White "offenders" guilty of committing "hate crimes" or just "related offenses" or a mix of both?

It also does not tell us the breakdown of the victims - but rather all "criminal incidents" and "related offenses" which were "motivated by bias toward race, ethnicity, ancestry, religion, sexual orientation, disability, gender, and gender identity".

This report does not claim that White people are responsible for 55.1% of anti-Asian "hate crimes".

All it claims is that 55.1% of the "known offenders" of both "criminal incidents" and "related offenses" which were "motivated by bias toward race, ethnicity, ancestry, religion, sexual orientation, disability, gender, and gender identity" were White.

And considering that White people make up approximately 61.6% of the population of the U.S. they are actually underrepresented as offenders of "hate crimes" or "related offenses".

In contrast - this FBI report claimed that Black or African American people made up 21.2% of "known offenders" - while Black or African American people make up approximately 13.4% of the U.S. population - meaning they are overrepresented as offenders of "hate crimes" or "related offenses".

Meaning that - according to these statistics - Black or African American people are approximately 77% more likely to engage in "hate crimes" or "related offenses" than White people.

What does that sound like?

I didn't have to go into such detail because the portion of the article that you quoted from said, "White people made up more than 55 percent of the offenders across the board" (Bold and italics added)

So - even your original claim had nothing to do with Anti-Asian "hate crimes" - and the article doesn't even claim that these White people had committed any "hate crimes" at all - only that they were "offenders" - which could mean they committed either "hate crimes" or "related offenses".

I wonder why it didn't give us a breakdown?

The article doesn't even share where it got that statistic about anti-Asian "hate crimes" increasing by 73% - because that wasn't mentioned in the FBI report they supplied.

The article claimed, "An online breakdown confirmed what scholars, activists and community leaders have known for a long time — that anti-Asian incidents took a dramatic upswing during the pandemic." (Bold and italics added)

What is an "online breakdown"?

Is that the same as saying, "It says on Reddit..." or "People on Twitter are claiming..." or "My friend who knows a guy who..."?

And again - why did they go with the percentage over the supposed number?

The headline says "Anti-Asian hate crimes rose 73% last year, updated FBI data says" - yet the article claims that "The FBI reported 279 hate crimes against Asians in 2020, compared to 161 in 2019."

(I don't know why they mentioned the FBI at all at this point considering that they used their reliable "online breakdown" to word their headline)

Which means - out of the 11,126 supposed victims of single-bias "incidents" and 346 supposed victims of "multiple-bias hate crime incidents" - there were only 279 reported anti-Asian "hate crimes"?

Anti-Asian "hate crimes" make up only approximately 2.4% of the single-bias "incidents" and multiple bias "hate crime incidents".

That means there was an increase of only 118 reported anti-Asian "hate crimes" out of the many millions of Asians who live in the U.S. throughout the entire year of 2020?

Of course - I'd want that number to be zero - along with all other crimes - but that's a drop in the bucket - an increase of 73% sounds so scary - but an increase of 118 - which is not so much.

So - this "sounds like" you saw a headline that confirmed your bias and you quoted from a source without even reading it.

The sources you quoted from are based on anonymous sources, wordplay about "incidents", "online breakdowns" and FBI stats that they don't supply a source for.

You don't know what you are talking about, and you don't care about facts or the truth - you only care about your bias.

Yeah, I don't need a bizarre lecture about how racist things aren't racists or how hate crimes are just misreported arguments (or whatever) between people of different races.

Your position is far too entrenched in your political leanings to have any sort of fruitful discussion about this.

Besides that, this thread is supposed to be about creationism.

 

[SkepticThinker]

This is exactly how the MSM like their viewers - vacant between the ears.

Now we're really done.

Have a nice life.

Prove it. Show me the cases.

My knowing where certain claims and arguments stem from means that I am "entrenched"?

I am informed.

I recall claiming that you are using the tactics and arguments of "the left" - but I don't recall calling you a "leftist".

I suppose it's similar to you claiming that what I said was "racist" - not that I was personally racist.

However - you claiming that what I said was racist - in order to feel no need to address my point - is evidence that you were employing "leftist" tactics.

So - I have actual evidence that you use leftist arguments and tactics - while you are still puttering around trying to prove that I said anything remotely racist.

Sorry - but nothing you have shared proves that White people committed the majority of anti-Asian "hate crimes".

What you shared actually proved that it is more likely for Black or African American people to commit "hate crimes" than White people.

Way to try and move that goal post though - to pan out from anti-Asian "hate crimes" - which was the topic of our discussion - and trying to move it to all "hate crimes".

Another classic tactic employed by those on "the left".

And it is true that crime is increasing - unfortunately - which is what people on the Right said would happen as the country screamed to defund the police.

And the vast majority of crimes against minorities is against other minorities - Black on Black and Latino on Latino - not White on Black or White on Latino.

That has always been true.

You don't believe that the race of the offender matters?

To hopefully discover the motivation for the hatred and possibly solve the issue.

It can help those who care about truth and justice to actually solve problems - rather than just race-bait and hand-wave.

The only reason you don't care - in the moment - about the race of the perpetrators is because it is politically expedient for you not to focus on it.

Anytime a White person does anything - like Kyle Rittenhouse - their race is all that matters and that's what everyone keeps talking about.

It's the same reason why the MSM kept claiming that a "red SUV" ran over a bunch of people in Waukesha - rather than the race of the driver.

It is politically expedient for the MSM, big tech, social media, the Democrats - and you - to only focus on the race of the perpetrators when they are White.

It doesn't help anyone - but it does push your political narrative.

Nothing you have shared proves that - sorry.

That is simply your opinion.

You have no way of knowing why "hate crimes" against Asians has increased.

You can blame the virus or President Trump - sure - but there have been other times when the rate of anti-Asian "hate crimes" have increased - so what or who are you going to blame for those?

We can't blame Bernie Sanders for what happened to Scalise - just like we can't blame President Trump.

And you claim that I am the one who doesn't know what logical fallacies are! LOL!

You are just stating your opinion as if it were fact again and pointing back to your opinion as if it were "proof" when your opinion is challenged.

You provided examples of Trump talking about various things - not that he had just learned about them - which is your claim.

This hurts it's so funny.

They must also be informed individuals.

And this is rich coming from you!

You don't even read the sources you "parrot".

Of course, it is - they admit as much.

They don't claim to be "balanced" like CNN - but then they are anything but.

Why you're still going on about black people committing all the hate crimes against Asians at this point is beyond me. It's not helping your case.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You need to prove that then.

Define what his "base" is and then prove that they were responsible for the anti-Asian hate crimes.

Don't rely on anonymous phoned-in reports - but actual cases where the identities of both the victim and offender are known.

And since when did Black people who live in Democrat cities constitute his "base"?

Facts cannot be racist.

Racism is the belief a person is inferior or superior to another because of their race and racist people are those who discriminate or who are prejudiced against someone because of their race.

Racism is an opinion based on falsehoods - because no one is inferior or superior to anyone else because of their race.

The opinion that someone should be treated differently because of their race is a racist opinion based on falsehoods.

Facts about who is committing the majority of anti-Asian "hate crimes" and where cannot be racist - because facts cannot be racist.

Claiming that Blacks or African Americans in heavily Democratic cities are committing anti-Asian "hate crimes" because of what President Trump said is like trying to claim that how atheists decide to treat homosexuals is based on what the Pope says.

Blacks or African Americans do not make up President Trump's base.

Supposedly so - but there have been increases and decreases of reported anti-Asian "hate crimes" for decades.

There has always been an "ebb and flow".

Then that means that your initial claim was racist and partisan - not mine - because I was responding to your initial claim.

You claimed that President Trump was responsible for the supposed increase of "hate crimes" against Anti-Asians because his comments inspired his base to commit them.

Are you being serious?

Your entire premise is based on the idea that President Trump and his base is responsible for the supposed increase in anti-Asian "hate crimes".

Yet - you completely ignore who are committing these supposed crimes and where they occurred.

You don't believe that is relevant information in relation to your initial claim?

And now even if you could somehow prove that these types of crimes were only being committed in "MAGA country" - I could just as easily try to explain it away like you by saying, "Just because something took place in "MAGA country" doesn't mean they were committed by Trump supporters."

Sillier than claiming that President Trump is responsible for the supposed increase in anti-Asian "hate crime"?

Let me guess - the media claims that white supremacist domestic acts of terror have increased 300% in the last year!

From 1 to 4! That's 300%!

How many billions of dollars of property damage was inflicted by white supremacists over the last few years?

How many deaths? Police causalities? How many "autonomous zones" were declared? How many public monuments destroyed?

And how many of their violent actions have been encouraged by the MSM, big tech, social media and the Democratic Party?

Yeah - we gotta watch out for those white supremacists.

No - it's misleading. Propaganda.

You have to go a few paragraphs in to see the actual numbers - but most people - like you - don't read the actual articles.

Yep - the AAPI and that FBI report are prime examples.

That Trump's base isn't responsible - which is your claim.

Yes - and as I said - claiming that President Trump is racist is "hand-waving" - which is what you tried to disparage me of doing - which proves that you are a hypocrite.

His calling COVID the "China Virus" isn't racist - like at all.

Then you don't know what "hand-waving" means.

How is your lack of comprehensive abilities my fault?

Claiming that your "example" is proof of racism is a logical fallacy - yes it is.

The only "point" you have been making is, "What you said is racist! Look at what you said! Racist!"

This is funny.

What?

Partisan nonsense.

Her knowing the date that he attended a party is not "evidence" of anything.

Sure it is. She knew the party was in July and she knew who was at the party (PJ and Squi), because they participated in attacking her.
And then there's Kavanaugh sitting there with a calendar he saved (for some strange reason?) that has the party occurring in July and it even says who was there - PJ and Squi!

She could not recall where the party was located and no one - not even her own friends - claimed that she attended that same party - or that she had ever even been to the place where the party occurred - or that she had ever even met Brett Kavanaugh. Ever!

Who cares? I don't remember the address of the place where I was raped and I can't even remember how I got home after it happened (I was kinda traumatized, ya know?). But I remember every single detail of being raped.

She also told her therapist about it and a friend.

And now we find out that the FBI didn't even bother interviewing Kavanaugh and only interviewed about 6 people, when 24 people actually came forward wanting to be interviewed.

She literally had zero evidence.

Most people have "zero evidence" of being raped. She had a lot more than that. What were you looking for, a DNA sample? [/QUOTE]

 

[AdamjEdgar]

I'll go with "bunch of crap."

Intelligent Design Theory is creationists trying to make their conclusions based on their personal intuitions sound objective or scientific. In fact, conclusions based on personal intuitions are literally the opposite of science. They are exactly what science had to overcome and falsify, in order to give us all those fruits of science that we enjoy today, from cars to skyscrapers to medicine to computers to sanitation.

This is a ridiculous conclusion...science without an explanation for where all of this began (it ignores that question because it simply does not have an answer), attempts to then use human observations, very finite human observations, observations that are possibly only through the technology developed by finite beings, as a means of explaining something it cannot yet explain!

If the first chain in the link of any theory cannot be explained, surely one has to conclude the theory is fundamentally wrong!

Unless science is willing to disfellowship its founding theory of relativity and its author, then it is in conflict with the very principle that its based upon...that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed!

What we have instead are hundreds of millions/billions...a lot of money...being poured into the search for the "God particle"

We could saver scientists so much money and time by converting them to religion!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

science without an explanation for where all of this began (it ignores that question because it simply does not have an answer),

False. It doesn't ignore such questions at all.
Plenty of scientists around the world are working on answering those questions.
Heck, the LHC - arguably the most complex machine ever build by humans - was build precisely for that reason....

But hey, don't let intellectual honesty get in the way of your charade...

If the first chain in the link of any theory cannot be explained, surely one has to conclude the theory is fundamentally wrong!

Theories have scope and origins of something is its own scope.

For example, you can perfectly study how rivers form and develop, without having to know how the planet formed on which those rivers run or where the water came from that makes up the rivers.

The formation of rivers has prerequisite requirements: an earth with land upon which rivers can flow / form. And liquid water. Looking around, both exist - regardless of where they came from. So given that they exist, researchers are perfectly capable of studying these existing things and work out how rivers form and develop.

I'm sorry if you can't comprehend this simple fact.

Unless science is willing to disfellowship its founding theory of relativity and its author, then it is in conflict with the very principle that its based upon...that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed!

Another one with no clue what he is talking about yet who thinks he can know better then actual physicists.
You folks are so hilarious.

What we have instead are hundreds of millions/billions...a lot of money...being poured into the search for the "God particle"

If you are talking about the Higgs Boson, it's been found already.

We could saver scientists so much money and time by converting them to religion!

But then you wouldn't have computers to spread your medieval anti-intellectual garbage.

 

[Brian2]

You saying, "This is racist!" - and then pointing to your "example" - doesn't at all prove that the "example" is racist - it just proves that you believe that it is racist.

You have every right to believe that - but you can't share your belief as evidence of your belief - that would be like a Christian quoting the Bible to prove that God exists.

Genesis 1:3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

God spoke therefore God exists, but not only did God speak but light actually exists therefore Genesis is true.

 

[AlexanderG]

This is a ridiculous conclusion...science without an explanation for where all of this began (it ignores that question because it simply does not have an answer), attempts to then use human observations, very finite human observations, observations that are possibly only through the technology developed by finite beings, as a means of explaining something it cannot yet explain!

If the first chain in the link of any theory cannot be explained, surely one has to conclude the theory is fundamentally wrong!

Unless science is willing to disfellowship its founding theory of relativity and its author, then it is in conflict with the very principle that its based upon...that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed!

What we have instead are hundreds of millions/billions...a lot of money...being poured into the search for the "God particle"

We could saver scientists so much money and time by converting them to religion!

This is a very strange argument. By the same logic, I could say that since you cannot show and explain where your god came from, or demonstrate its entire true nature (since any of this god's "mysterious ways" could hide evil, lying, or capricious traits, right?) then the entire theory of your religion is fundamentally wrong. There are many basic metaphysical problems that no worldview can solve, including yours.

We don't need to know what the ultimate nature of reality is, in order to build accurate predictive models of parts of reality, which is what science does. I don't need to know how my smart phone works in order to use it. I don't need to know the ontology of what gravity is in order to understand that an object will fall when I drop it.

Science doesn't need to explain "where all of this began" before it can make accurate statements about specific areas of reality, and many of those discoveries indicate that the Abrahamic god is very likely not real. As far as I can tell, creationists have no accurate statements about reality that they can demonstrate to specifically support the claims of their religion, besides pointing at the claims and stating they are emotionally appealing or intuitive to them. And that's not a good tool for finding truth.

 

[Brian2]

Science doesn't need to explain "where all of this began" before it can make accurate statements about specific areas of reality, and many of those discoveries indicate that the Abrahamic god is very likely not real.

Which discoveries indicate that the Abrahamic God is very likely not real?

As far as I can tell, creationists have no accurate statements about reality that they can demonstrate to specifically support the claims of their religion, besides pointing at the claims and stating they are emotionally appealing or intuitive to them. And that's not a good tool for finding truth.

Are you meaning "creationists" as in YEC or just in general about people who believe the universe was created?
I can point to statements in the Bible about origins and say that science has shown these things to be true. That is not a prediction but it is evidence on behalf of the Bible, assuming that the science is true. (sorry, but I do need to make that assumption)
I can make predictions based on what the Bible says but the thing is that science would probably never agree that these predictions are correct because they involve a supernatural being, and science would rather keep going forever to try and show their naturalistic answers are correct than to bring God into the equation.

 

[gnostic]

Genesis 1:3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

God spoke therefore God exists, but not only did God speak but light actually exists therefore Genesis is true.

That’s just circular reasoning, not evidence that god exist.

In fact, what you have stated, it isn’t even logical. It’s just confirmation bias.