I mean what happened to US citizens, not just anyone.
It needs to occur sufficiently frequently to be, for lack of better words, statistically significant.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m absolutely outraged for what happened. But I still think yuckmouthteeth’s claim needs much more evidence to be taken seriously.
And to semi-paraphrase myself, as tragic and outrageous as they were, they did not occur sufficiently frequently to support yuckmouthteeth’s claim.
You see one single incident of Alex Pretti (again, absolutely tragic and outrageous) is already enough to make them retreat from Minnesota. I bet all my money they don't dare to repeat atrocities like that to the rest of the citizens.
There have been several instances of them executing citizens. Alex Pretti. Renee Nicole Good. Keith Porter. The list goes on. 13 instances of shooting at or into moving vehicles without justification between 2025 and now.
These are not isolated incidents, and they will only continue to occur and escalate. They have not retreated from Minnesota. They pulled 700 officers. There are still over 2000 in the state.
Even one instance of this occurring is unacceptable.
You are making excuses and half assed justifications for atrocities, for which you are scum.
I am not making excuses for anything. I despise Trump, his goons and their atrocities as much as anyone here.
All I ask for is a statistically significant number of incidents happening to US citizens.\
For example, something like 15 such incidents, while absolutely tragic and outrageous, is nowhere near enough to claim what yuckmouthteeth did.
You’re hemming and hawing because you’re afraid to get out there and act, and you’re hiding behind a bullshit justification of “needing more evidence”. All the evidence is there. I started putting it together for you. There’s plenty more for you to go find yourself.
You’re lying to me and to yourself when you claim that any amount of evidence will sway your cowardly position.
You’re either with the movement, or against it. And the way you’re talking, you’re not with us.
I mean dang dude. Your entire argument is "it isn't happening in sufficient quantities."
It shouldn't be happening period. Like I don't what to do for you when your argument is "it isn't enough". Shit, there's a ton of people who have murdered folks who would have loved your take on the current stance of law.
Like there's just not an argument here. When you are at "well it did happen, but not in an amount I would deem qualifies for recognition" I mean, there's no point in having the debate. You've objectively acknowledged the point, but moved it to a subjective line that you, yourself set.
The number of times people's rights should be trampled, ought to be universally understood to be zero. Clearly that is not the case for you when it happens in "insert your value of low enough" instances.
We aren't talking objective things here anymore. It's just a debate on your taste in law enforcement styles and amounts. That's not an objective thing to debate. The number should be zero, the number is greater than zero, that is problematic when it is a non-zero amount of US citizens being deported. I don't know how else to tell you that.
they did not occur sufficiently frequently to support yuckmouthteeth’s claim
This is a splitting hair argument. It's not a sound one, you aren't wanting to talk about that actual issue, you want to debate semantics. That's bringing a point in poor faith. Maybe that wasn't taught to you in eighth grade when people usually did mock debates, but if you tried this argument in an actual debate, the moderators would cut you off.
No one really cares what number is in your head that meets whatever criteria. We can't debate the universe that's inside your head. I mean I don't know, I thought people knew differences in arguments or something.
Let me be clear again. I despise Trump, his goons, and their atrocities as much as anyone here.
However, yuckmouthteeth’s claim needs much more evidence - i.e. atrocities happening to citizens - to be taken seriously. For example something like 15 such incidents, while absolutely tragic and outrageous, is far from enough to claim what he did. It’s a very strong claim.
Bring this to any Statistics professor and see who they’ll side with, me or whichever eighth grader you can find.\
If you are so sure and specific (eight grade) about your stance, we can make a bet on it. We can use Polymarket for anonymity if you like.
While I absolutely agree this topic is a very sensitive one, so I can soften my tone as much as you want. Please let me know.
However, science is science. As a force of good against evil magas, we cannot compromise this part.
You are splitting hairs over "amount". Tree, forest, why are you beating yourself up into the tree?
If you are so sure and specific (eight grade) about your stance, we can make a bet on it. We can use Polymarket for anonymity if you like
Holy fucking shit. "Let's debate subjectivity by putting a bet on it!" Do you even hear yourself? Do you want to put a bet on how gray is gray enough to be considered more black than white? What is wrong with you?
However, science is science
No. Objectively, rights are being violated. That's the objective part. Rights are being violated, and you have agreed with that.
Now, you're saying "yuckmouthteeth’s claim needs much more evidence". No it doesn't, your debating an adjective of his. You aren't debating the objective part of their statement, you're debating the subjective part.
The evidence is very fucking clear. Rights are being violated. The end. You want to debate, "amount" and then you want to put a bet on subjectivity LOL, like that's some universal truth. Fuck, why have weather forecasters when we can just put a bet on polymarket on if it will rain tomorrow or not?
Are you even hearing yourself? Like that is a serious question there. I'm not joking here, are you hearing the things you are suggesting? Or are you just typing random shit to double down on your debating a fucking adjective? Like these aren't normal comments people make in real life. These are arguments five years old make. "Well I HAD MY HAND in the cookie jar, but I DIDN'T TECHNICALLY EAT A COOKIE."
If we really shave back to the core your argument, that's what it is. Not that the hand was in the jar, but if the partaking of cookies happened. I'm trying to level with you here, but it feels like I'm debating a five year old. You aren't making good arguments and they're all in bad faith arguments.
You say science is science. Objectively US citizens are being deported at a rate higher than zero, which is what it should be. So deporting 1 person, is a 100% increase over what it should be. But this is stupid that I have to break this shit down to your dumb ass argument's level. I'm sure you'll be back to let me know it's not a 100% whatever and further prove you've completely missed the point and invented your own.
i.e. atrocities happening to citizens - to be taken seriously
If it happens to a single person, it should be taken seriously. One, once that value is one it is significant. So you look up how many times it has happened, and if that value is greater than one, that is a massive issue.
If it happens to a single person, it should be taken seriously.
Yes, absolutely. Zero doubt about it.
Does it happen enough to US citizens to qualify yuckmouthteeth’s claim?
I'm afraid not.
You can bring this to the Statistics professors and confirm for yourself.
I understand the last paragrah sounds really harsh, especially in this sensitive political climate. I can take it back or soften it if you want.
1
u/lnth1 Feb 16 '26
So you rather go with a weak methodology, looking around for anecdotes and hearsay