It is impossible to escape the trial Zemmour, especially devoted to his remarks on blacks and Arabs, held in Paris at the moment. This event illustrates fairly well the lack of freedom of expression I mentioned not long ago. I heard a number of representatives of civil parties Zemmour blame for not taking into account the context when he got the words against him today in court. I confess that I do not understand what context they want to talk, but they are saying that we have put things in context, therefore trust the words of Zemmour in context. When he said that "most traffickers [were] black or Arab," and that was why they were more controlled than others, Zemmour met his interlocutors who claimed that the fact that Arabs and Arabs are more controlled than others showed the racism of the police. In other words, what Zemmour responded to his interlocutors that there is another explanation for this fact (that which is to allege racism in law enforcement), namely that it is simply more rational for a policeman to control more blacks and Arabs. It turns out that this argument is logically quite valid, that is to say that we must accept the conclusion as soon as one accepts the premise.
Zemmour assumes that blacks and Arabs account for more than 50% of offenders in France. I have no doubt that this is true, but I want to show that his argument does not have as strong an assumption, I'll make a much weaker assumption, namely that blacks and Arabs are overrepresented among the offenders. Let has the number of black offenders in France b the total number of blacks in the French population, c the number of offenders Arabs in France, of the total number of Arabs in the French population , e the number of white offenders France, f the total number of whites in the French population, x the total number of offenders in France and there the total population in France. By convention, I counted as all those whites who are not black or Arab, so mostly Asians. My assumption that blacks and Arabs are overrepresented among offenders written: has / x > b / y and c / x > d / y , which has / b> x / y and c / d > x / y . In addition, as per agreement I called all white people who were not black or Arab, and since I made the assumption that blacks and Arabs were overrepresented among offenders, it follows that Whites are under-represented among offenders, which is written: e / x \u0026lt; f / y , where e / f \u0026lt; x / y .
It follows from all this that has / b = c / D > e / f , that is to say, a priori, the likelihood that a Black or an Arab or an offender is greater than the probability that White, by which I mean someone who is not black or Arab, or an offender. Therefore, when a police officer must make an identity check, from the moment he seeks to maximize the number of offenders that challenges and it is true that blacks and Arabs are overrepresented among offenders, it is simply rational to control blacks and Arabs in preference to whites, that is to say to all those who are not black or Arab. The question of whether the police must be strictly rational in this case may arise, but that's another matter and in any event, the reasoning is perfectly valid Zemmour, provided it is true that blacks and Arabs are overrepresented among the offenders. A fortiori, if blacks and Arabs are not only overrepresented, but they represent even the majority of offenders as said Zemmour, the conclusion of his argument is all the more true.
Zemmour's response was logically impeccable as any schoolboy ever so little talent could be convinced easily. I will not waste time to show that the premise of his argument, namely that blacks and Arabs are overrepresented among offenders, is true but in case some of you have doubts, that words would be enough to negate bad faith or had brain washed enough not to notice it, know that despite the ban on ethnic statistics, there are sufficient indicators and targets of studies to demonstrate that this statement is true beyond a reasonable doubt. I would like also add to the attention of happy idiots who explained round of television and radio that it was outrageous to say that most blacks and Arabs were traders said that what Zemmour namely that most traffickers were black or Arab, does not absolutely that most blacks and Arabs are traffickers and that it is simply a logical mistake to pretend otherwise, when it is no evidence of bad faith.
Before you leave, to echo the ticket that I had spent the invalidity of the so-called scientific are regularly invited by the media (to explain that we do not see what we see very well yet), I invite you to read this post written by one Francis Briatte, doctoral candidate in political science who wrote a Blog where there is also another doctoral student who claims specialist in the far right. This guy tries to show us in this post, using terms which it clearly does not understand the meaning, that the reasoning of Zemmour, which he calls "counter rhetoric" is not logically valid, how all it shows is the extent of his stupidity and his inability to understand an argument that is yet to reach the first fool. When I read this post, I hesitate between laughter and consternation, because I know that idiot happy, yet with an IQ approaching that of an oyster with Down syndrome, will end one day on television shows to explain with tunes above that we are morons. This post strikes me as interesting that this supposedly scientific rhetoric illustrates fairly well the strategy of these characters, which is to give an air of seriousness by the use of complicated terms that they do not understand themselves to give credit the stupidities they argue, not only with impunity but with the support of the state, that is to say, the taxpayer who pays for debiting their bullshit. The icing on the cake, you learn by reading the comments of this post he holds in high esteem clearly Mucchielli Lawrence, which had previously demonstrated incompetence.
0 comments:
Post a Comment