You are not a smart person.
You are not a smart person.
Is what they should have put right beside the button to vote for Obama.Originally Posted by .blank cd
You're an amateur psychologist who changes diapers for a living. I guess your psychological understanding just isnt that useful to you when you cant put your opposition in timeout.
That's exactly what I do for a living
Oh what a fool i am..... thinking that people control their own lives or that they should be responsible for their own actions....
We are all at the mercy of our caretakers..... incapable of making decisions for ourselves or finding our own way.... -signed, Dr BlankCD
I'm not excusing Trayvon at all, I am saying you can't blame it on drugs. Saying that Trayvon would be alive if Zimmerman never followed him is not speculation, unless you want to argue Trayvon would have gone searching for Zimmerman. Saying drugs caused Trayvon to be violent is pure speculation. That's all.
You are correct that people's actions do affect the outcome of their lives but it is also true that factors outside of one's control also affect everyone's lives. Both topics should be discussed.
I'm not asking about your goal with this particular thread. I'm asking about all the threads you post such as a post about a black guy raping a white girl. What is the goal with something like that?
Awareness.
Awareness of what? Who on this forum do you think is not aware rape happens and sometimes it is a black perpetrator and a white victim?
should i filter the news or balance it out to where it has a more even racial balance? How would that lie benefit anyone?
I posted an article about a girl being thrown off a roof top......................
i repeat.........
thrown off a mother fucking roof top..............
and what you're taking away from it is the race of the people. Maybe that is the problem
If it were the only thing you posted, I wouldn't question the race at all but your track record is pretty much 100% on posting crimes with black perpetrators. It's to the point that if you make a post about a crime, I would bet money I can guess the race of the perpetrator. I've never seen you say anything but bad things about black people. Are you telling me that the race of the people involved in a crime is never a factor in what you post and it is pure chance that they are all about black perpetrators?
this is simply not accurate. My racial bias as it pertains to criminal activity is pretty much inline with the actual racial bias of the crimes happening. I'm not ignoring white crime, there's simply more black crime to talk about.
Should i filter my results to balance the races?
Actually it's factually false that there is more black crime to talk about. From the bureau of justice statistics, for the most recent year available the breakdown of offenders is as follows:
FY 2010 Offenders sentenced
Race of offender %
White 65.42
Black 19.52
Native American 1.34
Asian/Pacific Islander 1.74
Multi-racial 0.05
Other 0.20
Missing/Unknown 11.73
Total 100.00
So blacks commit about 1 in 5 of all crimes committed and yet blacks commit roughly 5 in 5 of the crimes you post, so I fail to see how you are an unbiased observer who would never use race as a filter. Either you are lying to yourself or to me about your bias against blacks.
WHY ISNT ANYONE TALKING ABOUT THIS?
Actually, Table 43 is available for 2011. Numbers are similar.
FBI — Table 43
I've brought up the FBI crime statistics before. Last time was in the gun rights thread.
Since we are back to statistics and not just conjecture between you and Sinfix, here are the FBI stats.
FBI — Table 43
Of Total Crimes, whites do get arrested for more crimes than blacks. Note that these are arrests, not convictions.
When you get into murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, blacks get arrested slightly more than whites, but its almost dead even.
In robbery, 55% of blacks vs 43% of whites in arrest ratios, but in larceny, whites are a 68% vs 28% for blacks.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
The united states is 70% white and about 15% black. Those 15% of black people are located in pretty dense areas. Theyre not evenly divided all around the united states. Every location that is predominantly black in the united states has an elevated crime rate. When you look at the murder statistics and see that black and white people are fairly relative statistically, you have to consider that we're comparing 70% of the population to 15% of the population and that the 15% of the population is located on about 20% of the united states. The fact that 15% of the population has such a dynamic affect on crime rates is very alarming. Considering white people are 70% of the population and theyre scattered from one corner of the country to the next, the crime statistics are a skewed. Something like Chicago is way more attention getting than white crime being spread out evenly across the nation.
You would understand this if you didnt start with a conclusion before asking a question.
Actually it's an incredibly obvious point so I certainly understand it. Blacks commit crimes in disproportionate amount to their population. I'm not arguing against that because that was never my point. I am arguing that you disproportionately focus on black perpetrators. In case you forgot, you stated:
You statement is false by the facts. There is undeniably NOT more black crime to talk about. If our country only had one black person and he committed 40% of the crimes in the country, you would still be wrong. Therefore, when you post only about black crime, you are showing a clear bias which absolutely does not reflect the factual numbers posted here. You are implying that somehow black crime is more discussion worthy than crimes committed by any other race. If you don't post anything about white crime, or asian crime, etc., then by what definition of "ignoring" are you not ignoring it?
I explained it pretty clearly in the post above.
Yep, I read it again. You do a good job of explaining that you see crime committed by blacks in cities as more alarming than other crime. At least you are admitting it now instead of pretending your concern has nothing to do with race. And you are still factually wrong that there is more black crime to talk about. I think what you mean to say is "there is more black crime that YOU want to talk about."
I explained it pretty clearly. If you dont get it, im sorry.
No, you were quite clear. I definitely get it now.
Good deal.
An analysis of ‘single offender victimization figures’ from the FBI for 2007 finds blacks committed 433,934 crimes against whites, eight times the 55,685 whites committed against blacks. Interracial rape is almost exclusively black on white — with 14,000 assaults on white women by African Americans in 2007. Not one case of a white sexual assault on a black female was found in the FBI study.
Though blacks are outnumbered 5-to-1 in the population by whites, they commit eight times as many crimes against whites as the reverse. By those 2007 numbers, a black male was 40 times as likely to assault a white person as the reverse.
If interracial crime is the ugliest manifestation of racism, what does this tell us about where racism really resides — in America?
And if the FBI stats for 2007 represent an average year since the Tawana Brawley rape-hoax of 1987, over one-third of a million white women have been sexually assaulted by black males since 1987 — with no visible protest from the civil rights leadership.
So what are you suggesting?
That civil rights leaders need to stop looking outward for the cause of the hardships that plague minorities in america.
But surely you don't think all interracial crime is a manifestation of racism do you?
Because their problems can't come from both, it has to be one or the other?
Civil rights leaders do. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Eric Holder, Obama, the NAACP, the black panthers do.....
Why focus all your energy complaining about a broken tail light when your car has a blown engine?
I'm asking about you, not them. It was you who wrote "If interracial crime is the ugliest manifestation of racism, what does this tell us about where racism really resides in America?" was it not?
You can't legally drive your car with a broken tail light so you put energy into both. I have in the past posted many examples of black leaders addressing the "inward" problems of the black community so they are not focusing all their energy on the outward ones.
I've said before that i believe collectively as a group that black people are the most racist group in america. Even though i'm not shy about making that highly critical statement, it's more of a reprimand of black leadership than it is a desire to blanket label the entire black community. Black leadership manipulates black people and manifests a lot of their problems.
You can sugarcoat it if you want..... but the modern day civil rights leader's primary function is to blame something or someone else or to inject racism into highly visible topics.
Yes there are many black leaders who inject race unnecessarily into things. I would like you to also recognize that there are other respected black leaders and even some of the ones you mentioned who do address black problems from within. Unfortunately it is the loud outrageous leaders that get more attention from TV and papers because controversy sells. I don't see how acknowledging the nuances and different sides of the situation is "sugarcoating" it. Focusing on a single aspect and then being aggressive and confrontational about it is being no more truthful than sugarcoating the issue.
Again, it was you who brought up those crime statistics and implied it was a result of blacks being racist. Quit using other's faults to justify your own.
There's no fault in telling the truth. I'm condemning civil rights leaders for not accurately describing the situation, you're condemning me because the actual truth is unpleasant.
Actually there is if you only tell a small sliver of truth and ignore all the other important and relevant components. Saying George Zimmerman shot and killed an unarmed black teenager is the truth, but if that's all you know, the situation will be misunderstood.
No that's not why I am condemning you. I even said I agreed that many leaders are uneccesarily injecting race into things.
That's not the "whole truth", but i understand the point. I thought my analogy was spot on..... "complaining about the tail light when the engine is blown"....
white supremacy... racism... things of this nature.... theyre a broken tail light in modern society and the NAACP is that cop who smashes the tail light before giving you a ticket for it being broke.
The "blown engine" is government dependency, culture of victimhood, lack of self responsibility, absence of family and education.
That is entirely my point. You say many things that are true but you don't tell the "whole truth". It leads to over generalization and over simplification of issues that aren't as black and white as they may seem to you. Then when I try to point out the nuances and shades of grey, you accuse me of sugar coating or defending the indefensible. All I am trying to do is make sure the whole truth is told.
Democratic leadership is the driving force behind pointing the finger at racism. The backbone of the democratic party is and always has been to manipulate minorities. Ever since black people first step foot in this country, they have been controlled by democrats, whether it be by force or with propaganda. When they had the ability to chain them, they did.... when they were forced to remove the chains, they started controlling them mentally.
The real racism in america is from democratic politicians. The ones who have manipulated and brainwashed black america into thinking that they cant survive without help and assistance. Inherently, black people have the most justification for being angry, but their anger is misguided. White people did not invent slavery and white people did not enslave black people...... the government did, democrats did..... now those same democrats seek to manipulate black america, keep them angry and "throw them off the trail" so to speak. The source of all of the problems is the same party theyve been manipulated into supporting. Democrats think black people cant make it america without welfare, food stamps and government aid....... and they call everyone else the racists.
I say things to contrast what the civil rights leaders say. If they throw an apple, i throw an apple. If they throw a rock, i throw a rock. The same statistics they use to incriminate "white america" are the same statistics you can find x10 to incriminate "black america".
That is exactly the problem I have. By using the tactics you rail against, you are trying to turn two wrongs into right. If you think they use manipulative misleading tactics, don't consistently use those same tactics. Being ironic is not a justification for participation in those wrongs.
Blacks didn't start voting for democrats until the 60s.
I learned a long time ago two wrongs don't make a right...
But it usually makes you feel better.
Black people entered this country to be greeted by slavery. Slavery being a democratic policy of the time. Democrats also wanted to insure that black people could not vote.
When these policies were removed, democrats starting courting black people with bribes. Given their situation in america, it's easy to understand how they were manipulated into taking these bribes. I believe democratic president LBJ once commented on this arrangement. Said he would have black people voting democrat for the next 200 years.... though he did choose more colorful language.
Political history always shows Democrats at the root of racism.... while simultaneously accusing republicans of doing everything that they were.
Again these are half truths. Yes the majority of slave owners were democrats. The whole truth would include that the democrats from 200 years ago (predominately southerners) would be firmly on the republican side today. At that time, the democrats stood for states rights and strict constitutional adherence. It was the democrat's New Deal policies and the Southern Strategy of the republican party that marked the major shift into the democrat and republic parties we know today. To say the democrats of today are anything like the democrats of per-emancipation is totally misleading.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
