MediumBaller
Hall-of-Famer
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2017
- Messages
- 8,595
- Reaction score
- 12,382
- Points
- 123
It's more likely than not that it is because of societal influences. I agree with that. He's proclaiming it as fact though without any data. Not even anything as simple as a white kid saying he was influenced to be a punter, or a black kid saying he was influenced to not be a punter. I'm sure it's not that hard to find.Nathan's argument is one of natural consequence by way of reductio ad absurdum. He's arguing that, given the absurdity of the proposition (re: black/white punters), one would require significant evidence in favor of the argument.
That's not actually true. An argument isn't true by default. Nathan is countering that the presented proposition is preposterous (read: absurd), and thus, without any reason to believe it is true, then it is very likely false.
You agree with him that it's not genetic, so it's eliminated as a likely solution; and if you agree with the axiom that it's either nature or nurture, then by consequence, you must agree that it's nurture (i.e., societal influences)
My problem isn't even really with this argument particular. It's with the ones of him saying things like "oh certain jobs are perceived as white people jobs" or "white basketball players are intimidated by black basketball players." They're far out there theories that he states without any evidence.