Orlanth wrote:I was right both technically and in the spirit of what I was saying. Asians do present a higher percentage of the prison population than their proportional percentage in the population, and the data backs this up.
You claim the spirit of what you said was correct, but then you restate your claim to something very different to your original statement.
Here's your original statement;
"Asians are a minority of the populace but are a significant proportion of the prison population"
And here's your claim now;
" Asians do present a higher percentage of the prison population than their proportional percentage in the population"
For your original statement to be but true, we would have to believe that 7% is a minority, but 8% is a significant proportion. Nobody is silly enough to claim that. But because ego you can't admit that your claim was wrong. So instead you just change from the first statement to the second and pretend you were claiming the latter all along.
Please don't do this, it wastes everyone's time, including your own. Just admit you made a mistake, you went with what you believed to be true, not what was actually true. Start admitting errors like this. Go looking for similar errors in all the other things you believe. You will find the quality of your arguments improve incredibly.
Sebster is incorrect in his analogy, first anyone spray painting a penis on a synagogue will be accused of a hate crime, especially if they knew the building was a synagogue, a swastika is worse but the alienation is already there. More to the point synagogues can an do complain about these sorts of things and it is taken seriously. Vandalise a church however and the police response is more muted, the former archbishop didn't help but then e was in this instance continuing his job as a Blairite mouthpiece
You don't understand the point I made at all. Go back and read it again. Notice that your argument was based entirely on hate crime laws as they are applied, while I made no comment at all on hate crime legislation in the real world. This is because I only wanted to point out the logical basis that sets out why two crimes can be the same in act, but different in effect because of a hate based motivation.
I didn't enter in to any discussion of how hate crimes legislation operates in practice, because it's a complex subject and in my experience any attempt to discuss the issue on the internet is a waste of time. This is because the debate is filled with lots of people who think because racism is wrong there could't possibly be anything wrong with hate crime laws in practice on one side, and white/Christian persecution fantasists on the other side who still say things like Blairite in 2017 on the other side.
