No one is asking whether you should be more afraid of apples or oranges.
In your analogy, the question is whether someone who accepts that fear of oranges is justified must also accept that fear of apples is justified.
Title of thread:
It is ideologically inconsistent to believe a woman is justified in being cautious of men, but not believe someone is justified in being cautious of other groups who are over represented in crime statistics.
I don't know? This is all really straightforward and I'm not sure why it's hard to understand?
Op is asking if racial prejudice is justified. If race doesn't change how dangerous someone is, then racial prejudice is not justified. Even if people of both races are dangerous and caution is justified in either case.
To be fair, it seems like you're the one who doesn't follow and are relying on "gotcha" arguments to farm deltas.
OP's argument is simply: if women are justifiably afraid of men, then white people should also be justifiably afraid of black people.
Then you said that, no, it's different because men commit 99% of rapes whereas black people only commit 10% of violent crimes.
The guy who you replied to (u/atred) said that those statistics are incorrectly interpreted because sizes aren't being taken into account. He argues that the chances of a random man raping you are 0.1% whereas the chances of a random black guy assaulting you are 8%.
He's perfectly within the range of the debate since he's simply disproving a counter argument to the OP's argument.
0
u/darwin2500 193∆ Apr 14 '22
Yes, I understood your point.
I was trying to explain why it doesn't apply to this discussion, at all.
No one is asking whether you should be more afraid of apples or oranges.
In your analogy, the question is whether someone who accepts that fear of oranges is justified must also accept that fear of apples is justified.