No, it is based on basic reading comprehension.
Whether a factor is "an" influence versus "the only" influence are completely different assertions and it is fallacious to infer one from the other.
True, but your sentence as written did not make that distinction. It was not as clear as you meant should be. It is not any reader's fault for taking you at your written word.
My written words in no way suggested "only". No qualification is required to denote something less than "only" since that is the implied meaning of the statement in the absence of a qualification that one is referring to the extreme and rare case of "only". When someone says "I like chocolate ice cream", do you infer that this is the only thing in the universe that the person likes and do infer that they are claiming that they are the only person in the universe that likes it? Of course not, no person capable of basic language comprehension would do that. "Only" could added to almost any utterance and to every verb and every noun in every utterance. Yet, no one does this and so people very rarely add a qualifier to clarify that "only" was not meant.
Thus, either you are one of the only people in existence that interprets the absence of "only" as meaning "only" and thus you constantly misrepresent what everyone speaking to you means, or your just pretending that its reasonable to interpret it this way because it serves your strawman-building rhetorical style.
Great. Then you can easily quote tons of examples where people make all of the claims that AA attributes to them in her absurdly cartoonish strawman. You better do it yourself because waiting for AA to give support for her claims is a lost cause.
Why I would have to quote "tons of examples"
Because you claimed her OP accurately characterized arguments that are "pervasive" and made by people on these boards. And you defended the reasonableness of her OP as an attempt to reference arguments being made in the other current threads. Your making claims, yet you cannot grasp why you would be asked to support them with evidence. Gee, how surprising.
The "Anything but Racism" observation/argument is independent of any particular individual.
Wow, you almost accidentally made a correct assertion. It is "Independent of any individual", in the sense that no individual has made the argument that she and you are falsely claiming people make frequently, yet cannot show a single example of or even realize why you should need to.
In fact, if you had bothered to read the OP and the link, you would see AA is quoting someone else.
It is obvious to all honest and reasonable observers that the OP is attempting to criticize arguments by people on this board, and specifically arguments in the Brown shooting thread. She admitted as much, and just hours before in that other thread had misrepresented my argument in just this way. The fact that she cannot be bothered to even build her own strawman fallacies and relies on some other ideologue who is equally disinterested in reasoned argument doesn't change that.
You can show zero support for the underlined part, as it is clearly your pure fantasy speculation that these are their motives and in fact there is evidence refuting your assertion, such as my repeated acknowledgments that racism is a possible factor.
Since I clearly gave that as my opinion, that is true.
IOW, you are admitting that whenever you give your opinion on a question of fact, it is clear that you have zero support for that position. Most of us here sort of prefer to have rational support for our opinions, because that is what these boards are kinda about, but I guess its good that at least aware of how your approach differs.
As for the italicized part, AA has essentially admitted this OP is an offshoot of our exchange in the other thread, so go ahead and show me where I put forth "inconceivable" variables to account for the behaviors. As for "conceivable" variables, they are more than that, they are variables such as having outstanding warrants, which have massive empirical evidence showing that play a huge causal role and that they are highly correlated with race, and that once you control for them, the racial disparity vanishes or reverses.
This is simply the failure to apply logical reasoning or the deliberate creation of a straw man.
It's cute that you're trying to borrow my language to cobble together the venere of a reasoned argument, but it isn't going to fly.
When someone gives a list of possible outcomes, it does not mean that each outcome is true for situation. That should be especially obvious when the qualifier "sometimes" is placed in front of it. Nor did my post specifically address you in that regard - it was clearly a general observation.
You don't need to limit it to examples of my personal arguments. You claimed these are pervasive arguments and made by people on this board. So go ahead and show examples of it on this board, and you don't need to show that "inconceivable" variables are always part of these arguments, just a couple examples of inconceivable variables would be sufficient. And if you can't manage to find anything in any of the currently ongoing threads, you can report that too and admit that like your other opinions, you have zero basis to claim that this form of argument is either "pervasive" or common on these boards, and you can notify AA that if she meant to characterize any arguments in the "Brown" thread or other recent threads (and it is clear that she did) that she is wrong. You never know, you actually find that you enjoy the novel experience of trying find evidence for your opinions. Of course, considering evidence prior to forming those opinions would be ideal, but...baby steps.
IF AA wanted to critique an argument, why doesn't she actually respond to the detailed facts and reasoning in real arguments rather than inventing an argument no one has made, so she can then dismiss it?
I don't read minds, so I cannot possibly answer that question. For some incoherent reason, you seem to feel that the OP does not stand on its own merits. The fact that AA indicates the OP is an outgrowth of some other thread does not mean it is directly addressed at you.
It isn't addressed to me. If she wanted to address me, she wouldn't have just responded to my requests in the other thread that she show evidence for her claim that I dismiss the very existence of racism and refuse to acknowledge that it ever has an impact on the world. It not addressed to me, but given that she had just made the same strawman mischaracterization of my argument in that thread, it is a clear attempt to criticize my and other efforts to merely ask for evidence to support claims of racism in specific situations by criticizing strawman versions of those arguments as made by a fictional person who cannot possibly defend themselves (because a fictional person is the only kind of person that can't dismantle such fallacious and absurd misrepresentations).
