dw wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 1:09 pm
mikeylikey wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 11:44 am
dw wrote: ↑Tue Mar 28, 2023 4:10 pm
You should watch The First 48 if you think victims of gang violence are generally responsible for their fates. I couldn't put a number to it but a lot of them are unintended bystanders or intended victims that happen to be related to someone who has enemies.
A) This affirms the consequent. Don't do that. That is not what I said, and,
B) I try not to draw conclusions about reality by extrapolating what I see on TV shows.
A) I was a bit loose with my wording but it seems to me the general inference I drew from your statement was correct: "your own choices are a substantial if not the overwhelming contributor to the likelihood you will be shot at by a gang or road raging driver".
Where did I go wrong? I didn't follow the preceding context if that matters.
Context is probably part of it; i was paraphrasing mbasic who listed a larger cateogry of crimes including road rage, gangs, police interactions, jealous boyfriends etc.
I stand by the notion that most of the time most people have choices available that pretty well minimize the risk of getting shot in the above category of circumstances. And context again, this was expressed specifically in contrast to the randomness of being shot by a crazy madman who just hates cans. It's not all or nothing. But like, if you wake up in the morning and think "I think I'd like to definitely not be killed in a road rage incident today" the algorithm that pretty much guarantees that outcome is not particularly mysterious.
I believe my sentiment above can peacefully coexist with the fact that some non-trivial fraction of victims of gang violence and violence in general are innocent bystanders or otherwise trapped in a bad situation with no good options.
B) Why not? Does your position extend to books as well?
It is my experience that True Crime TV features lots of sympathetic victims because this is more compelling TV and will sell more ads. Which is fine. If a TV show claimed to present a true representative sample of the victims of gang violence, and demonstrated some kind of rigor in getting there, that would be one thing. Most shows make no such claim nor are they obligated to demonstrate that level of rigor. This is fine and I don't begrudge and entertainment medium for being entertaining first and informative
second, later, maybe.
WRT books it would depend on the book obviously. But, same question - what's the claim, how is it backed up?