re: #404 wheat-dogghazi-mailgate

I’m not attacking the messenger if I am asking his particular knowledge or expertise in a subject. For example, if you were a criminal justice expert or LEO with particular experience with gang culture, your conclusions might carry more weight than from someone who has googled info and dropped links for others to read. You seem awfully defensive for someone who wants us to accept his analysis and conclusions without question. I was also asking if you had personal experience with gang culture because you seem rather obsessed with the particular topic.

Rather than accusing me of attacking the messenger, you could just answer the question.

And I didn’t go off topic. You brought up gangs in the context of the Dallas shooting. I said I was not discounting your remarks about gang rivalries and color choices in clothing, based on my own personal experience teaching. I’ve also coached debate and taught writing, and we teachers typically tell students to never rely on absolutes like “always,” “everyone,” or “everywhere” in an argument, because it allows the opposition the chance to disprove your point and weaken that argument. Guess what you did. You said gangs are in every city. Maybe that’s true. Maybe it isn’t. But offering anecdotal evidence to try to support your argument is not working. If you could find a reference, say from the FBI, that says unequivocably that gangs are present in every US city, your argument would hold a lot more water.

Right now, you’re just whining that we’re being mean because we don’t believe you’re right. IOW, you’re losing the debate.

go on, name me a city, all these words are just rambling, you are evading now when your specific point was I was stupid to claim gangs are a major problem in cities. So please, name. me. a. city.