posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 08:40 AM
I see Chris Haye's debate skills are non-existent. Deflecting the two-sided racial comparison of violent deaths with the one-sided racial comparison
of violent death vs. accidental death misses the point entirely!
And the presentation of the statistics have nothing to do with one race's fear of the other, no more than it had to do with one race's fear of
vehicles and pools!
This OP proves (as so many other posters prove) that there is a severe problem with reading comprehension with a large percentage of the general
public. However that is ALSO not the topic being debated by either O'Reilly or Hayes. I call this kind of debating 'sandbagging", as when you have
no facts to support your disagreement, you try to make the opposition look petty with totally unrelated comparisons and attacks against the presenter
of the argument that you fail to disprove.
Why this comparison is off the point? The point is violent death being subjected on others reflecting a problem that is more prevalent in one racial
group as opposed to the other, NOT accidental death imposed on one's self reflecting a lack of caution or an external fault.
No score for you, OP!
And WHO flagged this post? With the Hayes comments, this post, and the flag, that makes at least three examples of poor comprehension and knee-jerk
attacks based on nothing but their own prejudice against the facts, in this one thread alone! Just because some are offended by O'Reilly pointing out
the truth doesn't make them right. If you cannot discuss a truth for fear of offending, then REAL problems will never be resolved.
And a clue for the OP: The point is that there is a problem that causes the difference in violent deaths, and that problem seems to affect one race
disproportionally more than the other. Has nothing to do with vehicle safety. water safety, etc. One problem does NOT relate to the other, much like
apples and oranges being fruit does NOT make them the same thing.
Now, had Chris Hayes taken the same statistics, and made a two-sided comparison of some other issue that relates and shows the same disproportions,
then he would have demonstrated an argument that could be discussed and that could point to a remedy (example - comparing the difference in percentage
of racial violent deaths to a percentage of racial poverty and showing a similiar relationship). But he DIDN'T, therefore all Hayes did is show his
dislike for O'Reilly. And the OP did the same, repeating the SAME mistake (or maybe NOT a mistake, but an ATTACK).
Chris Hayes fails in his comparison, and so do you by taking it as a legit argument.
HINT - for the posting of this exchange to be of value, the OP should have pointed out what I said, and made the suggestion for Hayes to use better
facts to deflect the opposition, and then this post might get my flag and star. But agreeing with Hayes' faulty logic and biased attack only gets my
disdain and genuine pity for the OP's bias and lack of comprehension.