Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Secular Talk"
channel.
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@retop56 , Ok, first off, when have they challenged him to a debate? Ben said he is willing to have anyone on his show. Why don't they go?
Also, as for your two sources, I will have to watch the video, but I read the second well thoroughly and there are many ways to counter it. First, the author says
" It's easy to laugh.....at the phrase "conservative intellectual.""
The author immediately dismisses anyone on the right even though there are experts on both sides. To completely dismiss a side like that is a sign of a fool. Beyond that, the author misrepresents Ben and the author misrepresents the sources he posts and the data he presents. For example, he mentions
"But I’d also like to hear him explain why black men receive 20% longer sentences for the same crime as white men with similar backgrounds.)"
The study he points to says on page 32
"However, the fact that certain sentencing
outcomes may be correlated with demographic factors does not mean
that the demographic factors caused the outcome"
And explains correlation vs causation on page 41. So this author did not even read the study. There are factors that cannot be quantified such as appearance and attitude in the court room, or the environment of the local community at the time. On the second one, if crime happens to be higher than normal judges may push out harsher sentences in order to alleviate that. Or election time can play a role as well. Also, the graduation rate of blacks vs whites has a 20% gap as well. There is a correlation there. So you can't just point to a number and expect it to mean anything without proper context. The author just threw out a study where that study itself admitted correlation does not equal causation.
Next the author says
" But if someone shows that a white man with a criminal record is far more likely to receive a job callback than a black man without a criminal record, you’ll never hear it mentioned."
Well, Shapiro has mentioned that before in another way. He mentioned the issue of the "black sounding name" not getting the call back on a job. The reason why is because when no information of the person's criminal history is given the employer has nothing to go off of except overall stats. Overall blacks are more likely to commit more crime, including violent crime, than whites. So all things equal employers will go after the white individual because statistically they are less likely to commit crimes. The same is true for that "study". A white person committing a non-violent drug crime is still less likely to commit a violent crime compared to a black person committing a non-violent drug crime. It becomes a game of statistics. When little information is given employers will find something that is known. In that case they have to go off of overall stats and the less risky person in that case will be white. Shapiro has pushed to have people release their criminal background to employers so if two individuals, one black and one white, applied to a job, and all things left equal, but the white person has a criminal history and the black doesn't, than the black person will be hired.
I can go on but people who criticize Shapiro don't do it well. I suggest you actually look deeper on those sources you gave me instead of blindly following them.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5