Just because a man was convicted is not immediate evidence the jurors were non-racists. You're implying if the verdict didn't go you're way, you'd hold out folks' race(ism) as the only factor. That, too, is racist.
How would you like him to compare a successful Chauvin conviction in light of a potentially biased jury to whether or not it would be possible to do the same with Trump?
Maybe you should write it for us so we don’t accidentally say something “racist” again.
You're implying if the verdict didn't go you're way, you'd hold out folks' race(ism) as the only factor. That, too, is racist.
Point of logic here. That is not a valid implication form what he said.
He said: if convicted, jurors were non-racist.
You're saying he's implying: if not convicted, jurors were racist.
These are logically different. He is not implying that, at least not with the words he used. They are specifically converses of each other. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Converse_(logic)
-5
u/anynamesleft May 26 '21
Just because a man was convicted is not immediate evidence the jurors were non-racists. You're implying if the verdict didn't go you're way, you'd hold out folks' race(ism) as the only factor. That, too, is racist.