RangerDave wrote:
*shrug* Ok.
Well, let's look at this thread and establish why your position isn't credible. You made this claim:
RangerDave wrote:
The stats are pretty undeniable regarding legal immigrants. With regard to illegal immigrants, though, I grant that my statement was overly confident. It's obviously hard to get solid stats on what is, by definition, a semi-hidden population group. That said, most of the stats I've seen suggest the claim holds for illegals as well. It's a pretty easy Google for anyone that wants to check.
Said claim made in response to questions on the veracity of this statement:
RangerDave wrote:
The reality is that immigrants, both legal and illegal, commit crimes at a lower rate than American citizens...
So, we have 2 bare assertions contradicted by this post by Taskiss:
Click Here. Incidentally, your only response to that post is the following:
RangerDave wrote:
Uhh, Taskiss, the study population in that GAO report was illegal immigrants already in jail for committing a crime. Not exactly a representative sample of the population as a whole! And the rest of that Time article cites studies showing exactly the opposite conclusions from the Rasmusen study.
Now, you claim the Rasmussen "study" is internally contradictory, but you still won't go so far as to defend your own statement. In fact, you use a variant of the common knowledge defense, despite taking no measure and making no effort to indicate that what you contend is common knowledge is actually true. In fact, you specifically state you will not do so here:
RangerDave wrote:
No, I'm just not going to waste a bunch of time Googling stats and studies that you guys are going to read in bad faith and then pick apart anyway. I've been down that road too many times here. The numbers are easy to come by if you're genuinely interested. If you're not, feel free to assume I'm making sh*t up.
So, tell me why I should be interested in correcting your historical errors when you have repeatedly demonstrated in this thread no desire to change your understanding or knowledge of the discussion at hand?
Finally, no one asked a bad faith question. I asked you why you so willingly and conveniently overlooked the historical reality of the Democratic Party of the United States for the 100 years prior to the Civil Rights Era. Indeed, the only person posting in bad faith, as I have AMPLY demonstrated using your own posts, is yourself. If you wish for me to stop wasting your time, then proceed to do the following:
1. Defend your positive assertions.
2. Demonstrate a willingness to concede your position when it is demonstrated to be wrong.
3. Demonstrate a willingness to source your claims when asked.
As you have vehemently refused to do any of these things in this thread, your posts are little more than false claims to
tu quoque fallacies.
_________________
Corolinth wrote:
Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.