07-16-2024, 06:09 AM
(07-15-2024, 09:22 PM)Old Guy Wrote:(07-15-2024, 01:19 PM)Jonathan Whatley Wrote:Quote:However, the right's argument would be, "Who's in the hospital?" Who is on the receiving end of almost all the political violence?
Democratic State Senator Clementa Pinckney was assassinated and eight others were killed by a neo-Nazi in the Charleston church shooting. Democratic U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords was targeted for assassination and severely disabled and six others were killed by an extremist in the Tucson shooting. Liberal activist Heather Heyer was killed and thirty-five others were injured by a neo-Nazi in the Charlottesville car-ramming. Twenty-three people were killed by a neo-Nazi in the El Paso Walmart shooting. Eleven people were killed by a neo-Nazi in the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting. Ten people were killed by a neo-Nazi in the Buffalo supermarket shooting. Officer Brian Sicknick died possibly attendant of and many others were injured by right-wing rioters on January 6.
61? deaths out of 20,000. Now you wouldn't be guilty of cherry picking, would you? 61? out of 20,000 doesn't sound like a trend. It sounds like a failed argument.
My argument is that Democrats, liberals, and non-White minorities are a significant numerator of the denominator targets of political violence in the United States.
Your accusation that I'm cherry-picking implies that 20,000 is an appropriate numerator to the denominator 61 in a valid comparison. But you've introduced the number 20,000 with no explanation, no indication of what relation it has to the topic.
You probably introduced the number 20,000 because 20,000 is the approximate number of homicides in the U.S. in one year. But that's almost entirely non-political violence. That would not be a valid comparison.