Can you point to the "statistical analysis" provided in his comment? Because I sure as hell didn't see any.

He did so by using the term "net". Which means the sum of. Again assuming he is speaking strickly monetarily, that would mean he added up everything I mentioned in my last post. However, he never shared a source so it is an unverified analysis as I originally stated.

for societal worth

Again just monetarily. I feel like I've stated that enough by now. My whole premise is based on the assumption we are ONLY talking about monetary value. Something that can numerically and rationally be measured.

Human worth is not solely determined by money

Completely agree, but that's not what this discussion is about.

Please highlight where this "analysis" and "factual numbers" were in that comment.

Refer to the top of this reply.

This metaphor is just wrong. A 3-year old doesn't actually even fully speak english, they'd either be saying the word accidentally or have no idea what it means or its history. That's 1000x different than using it with "good intentions".

You are just creating an impossible situation. The only instance where someone could use the term without the intention of being negative is if they were naive to the meaning of the word. Someone who knew the history of the word would not be able to say it with the intention of not being offensive.

Your response is irrelevant because you missed the point. I was highlighting the fact that you make assumptions in your response; and they're incorrect ones. This reflects poorly on the rest of your logical foundation.

by saying "1. not liberal" you were in fact meaning to say "I was highlighting the fact that you make assumptions in your response; and they're incorrect ones. This reflects poorly on the rest of your logical foundation."???

Sure you did. By making an incorrect assumption about how I was generalizing you, that's what you really meant. Or you realized you fucked up and thought I was calling you liberal and now you are trying to say your original comment had some deeper meaning. I am sure that was your original intention.

reckless, adjective utterly unconcerned about the consequences of some action; without caution; careless (usually followed by of):

By this definition, how could you be in control of your intentions? How can you be careless but have good intentions? Please explain.

not caring what the consequences of those actions are

So then we agree, you can't have good intentions.

you cite Obama's statement about Michael Brown

yes, I gave you an example of the democratic party victimizing a felon who happens to be black. I will rethink this if you can provide me an instance with the president and a white felon.

Philando Castile? Tamir Rice?

Their deaths were tragic and warranted a response. It's not about carrying more weight. His comments about Brown should never have happened in the first place.