[Sloth]

Perhaps you are illiterate (see, I told you I'd get to that ad hominem). If he was not profiled on basis of ethnicity, then AA is pursuing a counterproductive colorblind policy. Freepers supporting AA are either 1.) in agreement with this bad policy and therefore worthy of criticism, or 2.) supporting AA in spite of not agreeing with that policy and are therefore hypocritical. If you're going to call this a 'false choice' explain why.

[VRWC_minion]

either 1.) in agreement with this bad policy and therefore worthy of criticism, or 2.) supporting AA in spite of not agreeing with that policy and are therefore hypocritical. If you're going to call this a 'false choice' explain why.

Now your guilty of a your names sake fallacy. By induction the policy is not what you say it is and you keep are ignoring the fact that your description of it doesn't follow.

Slothful Induction

---

Definition:

The proper conclusion of an inductive argument is denied
despite the evidence to the contrary.

Examples:

(i) Hugo has had twelve accidents n the last six months, yet
he insists that it is just a coincidence and not his fault.
(Inductively, the evidence is overwhelming that it is his fault.
This example borrowed from Barker, p. 189)
(ii) Poll after poll shows that the N.D.P will win fewer than
ten seats in Parliament. Yet the party leader insists that the
party is doing much better than the polls suggest. (The N.D.P.
in fact got nine seats.)

Proof:

About all you can do in such a case is to point to the strength
of the inference.

References:

Barker: 189