Let's clear up some falsehoods about right and left politics.

A claim was made that because there is more crime in cities....

That because there are more democrats/liberals, in cities....

Therefore, liberals are more likely to commit more crimes than conservatives, or that is the implication. There is another thread attempting to make this point. I'm posting this as a separate thread because the claim is rather common, and has been floating around right wing circles (and a little on the left) for years now.

Now, the flip side of that is that there are more murders in red states.

There are more conservatives/Republicans in red states (hence 'red').

Therefore, conservative/Republican policies cause more murders.

Are either conclusions correct?

NO!

Each assertion are post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacies.

In cities, criminals are mostly drug addicts hunting for money for the next fix, they steal, they kill, they rob, for money for drugs. Of course, other crimes exist, that's not the point.

I assure you, drug addicts and criminals, on the whole, do not vote, nor do they care about politics, and they have no political persuasion, it is the farthest thing from there minds, collectively speaking.

So, is it becuase of democrat policies that criminals ply their trade in cities?

NO! it's because it's easier to ply their trade in cities than in rural areas, and in rich areas.

I should think the reason is obvious.

Now, poor folks, the easier target of drug addicts, live in cities, too. why? It's easier for them, everything is close, there are bus lines, subways, and taxi rides are short hops. Democrat policies don't cause them to be there, CONVENIENCE is the reason they are there, and this also proves that Dem polices do not increase poverty. Poverty has existed several millennia long long before right and left politics ever entered the scene.

Therefore, to claim liberals cause violent crime (or poverty) is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

It's latin for 'with this, therefore because of this", i.e, because one followed the other, or that one is close to the other, one caused the other. Correlation is not necessarily causation, folks. This is a well established principle in science, and it's true here, as well. For a sleuth looking for the culprit, it might be a place to start looking, but that's about it.

So, to make such a claim about Democrats and crime is false, unfair, and dishonest.

What about high rates of murder in red states, which is true, is this because of Republican policies?

No, it's because meth labs (marijuana farms?) are easier hidden in rural areas, and the murders are drug related. Now, I'm speculating, to be generous to Repubs, I'm sure the reasons are along these lines (or it's one angle that I'm trying to think of) but gun ownership is also more predominant in these regions, as well. Is that causal? I really don't know.

So, both, having nothing to do with politics, are due to criminals and bad people plying their trade in an region conducive to their trade. The reason for both is precisely the same for both, but different types of crimes.

Now, if you want to argue poor policing, that could contribute, but that's a separate subject and it is a complex subject, but it doesn't change the principle. Sure, it's a complex subject all around, and there are more factors to consider, but I'm just talking to principles, repubs like simple, so I'm trying to keep it simple.

Does anyone not see this?

If you disagree, please state your case, but provide data.

 

Yes those are logical fallacies.

No, they arent necessarily incorrect.

My theory is that crime and leftism/progressivism are both symptoms of the problem of too many people and not enough space. People are literally less free in a physical sense in urban areas. This causes them to be more prone to accept mutual dependency, require sacrifice from others while accepting more sacrifice from themselves, tolerate more restrictions on themselves that are necessary for close quarters habitation, etc ...but also theres more people that go a little nuts from it, start resenting others as obstacles or viewing them as prey instead of other members of society. Not to say rats dont eat eachother in the woods too, but they do it a lot more frequently in crowded cages.

So no, I dont think leftism causes more crime in cities, I think cities cause more crime and also leftism.

 

Clearly Patricio hasn't been in Portland Oregon.
We lived there for a decade in the 80's.
It was pretty much a red state, although the liberals were a strong balancing force.

Since then Oregon has gone deep, dark blue.
In the 80's you didn't see many homeless, or much trash in the streets.
Today it's like being in San Francisco; trash and homeless everywhere.

In the 80's there were no riots or public displays to speak of.
Today the scars from the Portland riots in 2022 are still visible.
With only a few exceptions the rioters and looters were given free pass for their crimes.

In the 80's drugs weren't a big deal; in fact the state only wrote drug laws pertaining to things like unemployment benefits because they were told to by the Feds.
Today drugs are a huge deal; In their wisdom the liberals decriminalized all forms of drug use a couple of years ago. Drug overdose deaths are way up; drug use is exploding, especially in schools. It's gotten bad enough that even the most liberal are rethinking the wisdom of "decriminalizing" drugs.

No, none of this is scientific, and won't meet Patricio's exacting standards, but the reality is, I traveled to and/or lived in San Francisco, Seattle, and Portland long enough and often enough to mark the difference between then and now. In each of these cities as the government has gone more liberal living conditions have deteriorated.
Significantly.

 

Dude! I'm pretty sure nobody thinks its because there are more democrats in those areas, its because of the democrats SOFT ON CRIME laws.

 

Every time the rooster crows, the sun comes up. Therefore the rooster is a very powerful creature.

 

I am not sure that anyone said it is BECAUSE there are more Democrats in cities. I took it to mean that because there is more violent crime in cities, therefore more Democrats are violent criminals by comparison to Republicans.

This is not an easy statistic to find spelled out precisely, but common sense can lead one to the correct answer.

Blacks represent the largest share of the violent prison population while being a tiny proportion of the population. They also vote 90% plus for Democrats. Whites represent a slightly smaller percentage of the prison population while being a much larger share of the population, and they vote Republican around 55%.

If you look at it from another perspective and determine what income quintiles commit the most crimes and cross reference that with how those income groups vote, you would also logically conclude that far more Democrat voters are criminals vs their Republican counterparts because the lowest income quintiles commit most of the crimes and theoise same quintiles vote Democrat by huge margins.

Using those two measures alone make a strong case that there are more Democrat violent criminals vs Republican violent criminals. It is hard to argue the opposite and maintain a straight face.

I suspect you will argue that this is not proof of anything. However, if there were a magical way to determine the exact proportion of Democrat vs Republican violent offenders and you had to bet your house on the outcome, you would look at those same numbers and place your money that there are more Democrat violent offenders vs Republican. With so much money on the line that money would trump your political allegiance, and you too would all of a sudden gain common sense on the issue and happily collect your windfall.

If you claim that you would not bet on the Democrat side of that ledger and would instead bet on it being Republicans, I do not believe you.

 

Homelessness increased in Portland for the same reason it increased in big towns in CA

1. Weather is better.
2. High rents put low wage earners on the streets, but that's due to supply and demand 'capitalism'.
3. Their civil rights are now protected, they never used to be, meaning that no one can just go around
and round up homeless people and put them in a mental institution like they used to. I think the ACLU had a lot to do with this.

yes, there are other factors, but these are the more salient reasons.

Decriminalizing drugs doesn't cure the drug problem, it just relieves jails and allows society to focus on treatment than incarceration, and undermines cartels in mexico, so the benefit to society is better than before prohibition. Prohibition doesn't work, period, as it causes more problems than it solves. Recall the prohibition of the 20s/30s.

 

Straight face, argue the opposite?

Congratulations, you've committed a post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy.

And you sit there and pontificate about 'honest'.

If blacks vote for dems, it's because they believe dems are better for their interests.

Dems are more likely to provide affordable health care, are more likely to provide safety nets for the poor.

And why are more blacks poor?

That fact has nothing to do with right or left, has to do with 400 years of white oppression, driving blacks off economic opportunity cycles, where the right are years ahead on the investment/inheritance cycle, and it is becoming harder and harder to catch up to whites, because capitalism promotes dynasty-ism and that favors whites, by a long shot, and on and and on.

they vote for Dems because dems, more than repubs, are perceived as trying harder to reconcile that issue.

They largely vote for Dems because they know that Repubs only care about rich people, people like themselves, and are xenophobic, hate immigrants, want a libertarian world where 'I got mine and f*ck you" mentality reigns.

Blacks that commit crimes, they are not political, most of them, they don't vote, criminals are criminals.

now, you you want to argue why are blacks more inclined to crime, then you might take a look at 400 years of WHITE OPPRESSION. Something about 400 years of oppression can mess up, entirely, a whole race of people and it will probably take another 400 years for that negative impact of that level of oppression to sort itself out and where society reaches a place where white and black become truly equal, and though we've made progress, we've got a long ways more to go.

And you are so f*cking 'honest' you can't see with any sense of depth and perspective which must include centuries of history

 

Meh, you have just completely changed the subject and avoided what I had just said.

If your claim is that you would not bet on it being Democrats, I do not believe you. I doubt anyone else does either because the demographic argument is rather compelling. There are too many strong demographic trends that would point to it being Democrats that have by far the most violent criminals to believe that anyone would be stupid enough to bet that kind of money in the opposite direction. It is not even a close call.

I don't care if you give a 5-page rambling reply. It changes nothing.

 

The political equivalent of "spontaneous generation."

Given the GOP relationship with science and truth it's not surprising that this is a core belief.

 

Debunked here.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ght-and-left-politics.617549/#post-1074715524

 

LOL...This is precisely why you hear the intellectual dishonesty accusation.

That's not an example of anything being debunked.

That is an example of you responding to a post almost exclusively about demographics, and you not addressing the demographic angle/reality even remotely and now pretending like it somehow debunked the reality of those demographics, when in fact you said nothing on the subject.

Yeesh. It is hard to believe you are being serious.

 

How about YOU present some data with substantiation first, rather than silly slogans, distortions, etc. Here's an idea - you claim red states have higher murder rate - dive a little deep and see what areas of those states have the highest rate - now check the political leaning of those areas; your sill attempt to distort that notwithstanding.

 

Then make a bona fide argument as to why it hasn't been debunked.

Apparently you missed the part where I explained why the demographic angle resulted in a post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy, and on that point, you have failed to counter it, and resort to a generality.

"hard to believe you are serious' ?

That's posturing, posturing is not an argument.

Please find a real argument.

In the meantime, my comment thoroughly debunked your premise and you have not countered anything in it,

I explained why the demographic issue is a specious one, see above.

And your answer doesn't rise above 'you are wrong'

"You are wrong' is not an argument.

You have to demonstrate, with specificity, why my path of reasoning was wrong.

You have failed to do that.

Now find a real argument.

 

Alright, I will gladly take the time to explain why it hasn't been "debunked" as you claim.

The demographics that I brought up to support my position were...

1.Blacks represent the largest share of the violent prison population while being a tiny proportion of the population. They also vote 90% plus for Democrats. Whites represent a slightly smaller percentage of the prison population while being a much larger share of the population, and they vote Republican around 55%.

2. If you look at it from another perspective and determine what income quintiles commit the most crimes and cross reference that with how those income groups vote, you would also logically conclude that far more Democrat voters are criminals vs their Republican counterparts because the lowest income quintiles commit most of the crimes and those same quintiles vote Democrat by huge margins.

Now if we take the above and apply it to your bluster of calling it a post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy, we must first define precisely what this term means. It is defined as "an error in logic that assumes that the cause of something is something that merely occurred earlier."

OK. Honestly, I think this claim falls under its own (lack of) merit, but I will spell it out since you somehow are under the impression that it debunks the demographics involved here.

In order for your position to be correct that my statement was a post hoc ergo propter, it would first have to be an attempt to define or explain the cause of something. Describing voting demographics applicable to race and then applying that to the prison population is not attempting to attribute a cause to anything, rather it is explaining WHAT is, as opposed to WHY it is. Similarly, describing voting demographics applicable to income levels and then cross referencing that with income levels that commit the most crime is also not attributing a cause to anything. It is instead explaining WHAT is rather than WHY it is.

What is ultimately being claimed is not that one causes the other as you state, rather it is asserting that one accurately predicts the other. More blacks in prison in combination with blacks voting 90% plus for Democrats accurately predicts that more of those black prisoners would support Democrats vs Republicans.

When you consider that I framed it not in absolutes, but rather as a means to decide which side to bet in a hypothetical where you are betting your house, your accusation falls even flatter.



Your turn. Explain how looking at raw demographics could possibly be a post hoc ergo propter fallacy as you allege when the reality is that the definition of such requires that it be an attempt to explain the why of that information. Up until this point you have just accused it of being that fallacy, now explain WHY you think it qualifies as such. Without me making any attempt whatsoever to explain why the demographics are as they are or to put the concept in sequential order, I find it hard to fathom how you can possibly defend your assertion.

The truth of the matter is that you throw the post hoc ergo propter accusation, around along with your "weasel words" nonsense so frequently that people just ignore it. You take their lack of response to mean that you made a good point, and that is just bereft of reality. Your belief in your debate effectiveness and reality diverge quite frequently.

At any rate, I look forward to seeing your explanation of how you think this qualifies as the logical fallacy that you are claiming. This should be good (entertaining).

 

WHY?

Your post twists logic to try to avoid answering that question. Absent of that, it has no conclusion.

A syllogism with no conclusion is called an Enthymeme. This is when the speaker does not explicitly state the conclusion, but assumes the audience will reach the conclusion that the speaker expects them to reach. The reason why you would use an enthymeme is to attempt to hide a fallacy.

In this case, you expect the audience to assume that it's because they are black. Given that this is the element that is repeated and emphasized in the premises. So it's a Post Hoc Fallacy, but the structure of the fallacy is an Enthymeme.

Therefore you have proven that @Patricio Da Silva is correct. The conclusion you expect IS the one he stated. And therefore, it's a Post Hoc Fallacy.

 

You can't blame poor policing when consequences for committing crime are removed. I would like to see law enforcement focus on crimes that harm people and not things like smoking pot or pulling a hunter biden.

 

Twist logic how?

If I were to look at 2 statistics
1. 90% of tik tok users are under the age of 35
2. 60% of people under 35 vote democrat

Assuming that both of those statistics are true, why would it be twisting logic to conclude that if I had to bet my life on getting the right answer, that any logical person would conclude that therefore most tik tok users vote Democrat.

The notion that blacks make up the most prisoners in combination with blacks voting 90% plus for democrats and then concluding that the logical bettor would therefore bet that more prisoners are Democrats vs Republicans is essentially the same concept.

If you want to take up his post hoc ergo proper accusation you too need to explain how it could be so when it makes no attempt to attach a why to the situation. It is not attempting to explain WHY blacks vote Democrat, or WHY Blacks make up the largest percentage of prisoners, it instead only looks at the reality that this is the case.

LOL...You don't REALLY think you just proved your position do you? There was no attempt on my part to "expect the audience to ASSUME that it's BECAUSE they are black." I did not say or imply any such thing. What is it with you two Bobbsie twins where you think you can credibly mischaracterize my position and then proceed to argue against YOUR mischaracterization?

 

Apparently you didn't understand the post. I brought up the fact that red states have a higher murder rate (a fact which has been posted, with evidence, so many times on this forum I thought it was general knowledge) but my point was to make that anyone claiming that, therefore, Conservative Policies are at fault is as much of a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy as Repubs claim that Democrats in cities cause crime, which is also a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

But, since you asked:

 

I just explained it to you. Please read it again.

NO!!! I can't even say "nice try" because the generic differences between the two examples are too obvious.

You are NOT talking about tik tok users. There is nothing an audience can assume about tik tok users beyond the fact that they use tik tok

The elements are "black people", "in prison", "who are violent". So you are equating, right from the start, those three elements in order to FORCE on the audience a conclusion. In an enthymeme, that is THE SAME as you reaching that conclusion.

@Patricio Da Silva already explained in the OP why YOUR statement is twisted logic. So, at this point, you just need to read the OP again. But now you know that what you said IS, in fact, a logical fallacy even if you didn't explicitly state the conclusion.

What you do with this new knowledge is up to you: correct it, retract, prove it, ignore it, or take it as a lesson and try not to do it again.

Absolutely, completely, totally DIFFERENT from your original post in so many ways. Just a couple of reasons: because THIS statement has a conclusion. Also because you eliminated the biased element "violent" which is one of the main ones to attempt to ingrain the desired pre-establish post-hoc conclusion in the audience. And for MANY more reasons.

But, on a side note (not too relevant to my point, but significant), even then it would still be a post hoc fallacy. And a good example of WHY post hoc is a fallacy given that it's more than likely wrong, Because it doesn't consider the states where convicted felons can't vote.

The gist of the post hoc fallacy is the attempt to make the audience believe that all the possible conditions that would produce a certain result are accounted for when, in reality, they are being hidden. And this is especially true when you use emotionally charged words like "violent crimes"

Why would you be characterizing black populations AT ALL (especially with loaded expressions like "violent" or "in prison") if you DIDN'T want the audience to reach some conclusion about violent black populations in prison?

Too obvious...

 

. Nonsense. You're playing games and trying to use a twist logical fallacy as an excuse.

 

Weather is better...... You've never spent a winter in Portland or Seattle.
Wages? Minimum wage in Seattle is$19.47 an hour. And in Portland it's $15.89.
The "civil right" to crap in a stores doorway should never usurp the owners right to their business. The "civil right" to aggressively panhandle, steal, or squat on public land should never usurp the right of society to have some order.

Drugs? The experiment in Oregon puts lie to the liberal justifications for a total lack of responsibility.

 

You've already cited the data - crime rates in large rates surpasses rates in suburban and small towns. The fact that most large cities are traditionally democrat and have, in recent years reduced police force (defunded, e.g.) and in addition, thanks to large blocks of funding going to electing "woke" district attorneys and instituting "no-cash bail" have increased crime. Case in point - San Francisco -historically one of the most democratic control cities for decades. Once a delightful and urbane city with attractive restaurants, museums, shopping and theater, down town SF is now a crime ridden, hazardous, filthy jungle.

 

No it didn't.

 

It’s a simple matter of demographics. Minorities, young people and Blacks in particular, make up the vast majority of crime.

hmmmmm who do those people all vote for overwhelmingly….hmmmmmmmmm

It ain’t middle aged rural white men committing all the crime. But feel free to post some contrary statistics on that. Maybe those rednecks really are going wild out there?