you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Had the original post simply pointed out that America's incarceration rate is horrible, I would have no disagreement with it, but instead it chose to make a direct comparison between present-day America and China during the Cultural Revolution.

My primary disagreement with this comparison is not with that fact that present-day America has a higher reported incarceration rate than China during the Cultural Revolution, it is the fact that to an audience that may not study history, it helps craft the narrative that China during the 1960s was a much nicer place to live than present-day America because the incarceration rate was significantly lower. I thought it was worth mentioning that, regardless of why it happened, or if anyone was at fault, one of the largest famines in human history occurred in China immediately preceding this time period, which made it not a very nice place to live. There are things worse than incarceration, and most people, myself included, would choose life in a U.S. prison over starvation. Not that either choice is a good once.

My secondary disagreement was with the implication that I don't know how basic statistics work. I suggested that a massive removal of poor-people from a population could have reduced the overall incarceration rate. You said that this was "nonsense". Not that there is insufficient data, or that it wouldn't be a very significant change. My burden of proof is not, probable, or possible, it is just above the level of nonsense. Or do you retract your previous statement that I made a nonsensical argument?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    I think it’s rather chauvanistic to try to say it’s better to live imprisoned in a developed country than non-imprisoned in a developing country

    That's not what I said. I said it is better to live imprisoned in the U.S. than to starve to death.

    Nah, I don’t retract my statement

    Ok, well if you aren't even going to concede that a rational argument, as incorrect as it might be, isn't nonsense, then I don't think we will be able to have any meaningful discourse.

    I wish you well. Good luck with your Marxist endeavors.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    A rational argument is an argument that follows some sort of logical thought process, it has nothing to do with whether the conclusion is correct or not.

    This is a rational argument:

    • Premise 1: The Earth is a planet.
    • Premise 2: The Earth is flat.
    • Premise 3: All flat planets have edges.
    • Conclusion: The Earth has edges.

    Premise 2 is false, and premise 3 is unknown, so the conclusion is false, but it follows a logical thought process and isn't nonsense.

    This is nonsense and irrational:

    • Premise 1: Apples are round.
    • Premise 2: Pyramids exist.
    • Premise 3: Unicorns have horns.
    • Conclusion: Aliens!

    There is no discernible logic or rational thought process. It is just apparently random statements with no connection.

    Again, since we can't even agree on commonly accepted definitions for basic concepts, we just aren't going to be able to have any kind of productive conversation.

    Good day.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)