- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Profound statement on the acceptable rate of crime
Posted on 8/12/25 at 7:45 pm to UtahCajun
Posted on 8/12/25 at 7:45 pm to UtahCajun
quote:
Why bring up a strawman and then why defend that strawman?
l think you need to learn what "strawman" means
quote:
Only reason strawman arguement is used is to deflect from a valid point.
Why are you deflecting?
I directly addressed the point with my initial post
1
Posted on 8/12/25 at 7:45 pm to Klark Kent
quote:
this whole defending crime statistics, that may or may not juked, is your new favorite subject to argue.
New? Maybe in 2006
Posted on 8/12/25 at 7:47 pm to SlowFlowPro
i suspect it’s another TDS flare up due to Trump cleaning up DC.
Posted on 8/12/25 at 7:47 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
many think feel like they grew up in a safer time than today, which is objectively false.
Probably because the area they grew up in was safer than the area they live in now.
Posted on 8/12/25 at 8:00 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
For you dawg. What you are doing is intentionally misrepresenting the original point. The point isn't crime rate(of course I notice the most recent data you showed is over 6 years old and preCovid. Definitely doesn't show 2020). It is, are there places too unsafe to walk.
quote:
I directly addressed the point with my initial post
You addressed it with something about "muh feelz". You directly threw away a truth for a snarky comment...unless you feel there are no places in tUSA that is unsafe to walk at night.
So I take it, you feel comfortable walking anywhere in this country at any time.
This post was edited on 8/12/25 at 8:01 pm
Posted on 8/12/25 at 8:04 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The point is that it's much safer to walk at now now than compared to 1975-1995, and crime is going back down
Since you did say this, that would mean that unsafe places still remain.
Why argue against this with strawman? Why not just agree? It is a truth.
Posted on 8/12/25 at 8:07 pm to UtahCajun
quote:
The point, as it stands, is that there are places in this country too insafe to walk at night. This is true.
Has there ever been a point where this statement wasn't true about somewhere in the US going back to the very beginning?
Posted on 8/12/25 at 8:09 pm to SoFla Tideroller
quote:
The District of Columbia was specifically mandated in the Constitution to be run by the federal government. Usually, I would append "...but, of course, you knew that" to a statement like the previous sentence. In the case of this window licker, I have my doubts.
Posted on 8/12/25 at 8:10 pm to oklahogjr
quote:
Has there ever been a point where this statement wasn't true about somewhere in the US going back to the very beginning?
How does this even remotely make it ok?
There are places in the world, where the general population is not as wealthy, where this is not a thing.
Posted on 8/12/25 at 8:26 pm to UtahCajun
quote:
You addressed it with something about "muh feelz".
Because that's literally what OP is
Feelings over facts.
quote:
unless you feel there are no places in tUSA that is unsafe to walk at night.
Now THIS, this is a straw man
quote:
So I take it, you feel comfortable walking anywhere in this country at any time.
And a double down on the strawman
Posted on 8/12/25 at 8:27 pm to UtahCajun
quote:
How does this even remotely make it ok?
How do you stop people from feeling unsafe, even if there is no objective data to support the feeling? That's the problem with OP and its purported standard.
Posted on 8/12/25 at 8:30 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
How do you stop people from feeling unsafe, even if there is no objective data to support the feeling?
Do you think the tweet in OP is really only about feelings?
Posted on 8/12/25 at 8:30 pm to the808bass
ONLY? No.
Primarily? Yes
Primarily? Yes
Posted on 8/12/25 at 8:35 pm to SlowFlowPro
That’s your autism kicking in again.
Posted on 8/12/25 at 8:38 pm to the808bass
Read the comments, it’s quite literally all about feelings.
The author himself doubles down on “the reasonable person standard” about a million times, which is itself, just a feeling.
If we’re not tying policy to objective facts then we’re just asking to be controlled by propaganda.
The author himself doubles down on “the reasonable person standard” about a million times, which is itself, just a feeling.
If we’re not tying policy to objective facts then we’re just asking to be controlled by propaganda.
Posted on 8/12/25 at 8:40 pm to mwade91383
quote:
The author himself doubles down on “the reasonable person standard” about a million times, which is itself, just a feeling.
So you think he’s saying that even if his mom or grandma is crazy, we should take their feelings seriously?
If not, then your argument falls apart.
Posted on 8/12/25 at 8:41 pm to the808bass
People allow all sorts of content/variables to influence them and believe untrue things.
These discussions are an excellent example of just that.
These discussions are an excellent example of just that.
Posted on 8/12/25 at 8:41 pm to mwade91383
quote:
If we’re not tying policy to objective facts then we’re just asking to be controlled by propaganda.
Just read this. Jesus Christ. Lol
Posted on 8/12/25 at 8:41 pm to oklahogjr
quote:
The answer to this is clearly we need to staff up and have a more heavy handed federal government crack down on crime.
Trump with the 8D chess, making statist progs into states’ rights Confederates.
Posted on 8/12/25 at 8:41 pm to mwade91383
quote:
If we’re not tying policy to objective facts then we’re just asking to be controlled by propaganda.
And engaging in emotional triggering (primarily fear) opens the door for just this.
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News