I read your posts, most of which don't even accept the existence of an alternate position.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Continuing the "race" discussion...
- Thread starter pastorjoeboggs
- Start date
Posted from Rivals Mobile
So because I feel very strongly in my beliefs (the same beliefs I've had since before cable and the internet even existed), I'm letting the media control my opinion? Please explain how this is possible? My high school college prep government teacher will be interested in hearing your response as well. As he (about as far left on the political spectrum as one can get) and I would often take up the entire class time to debate current events of the day. This was in 1985/86 mind you; before the internet; before cable; the only damn show on TV was Phil Donahue. My conservative debates with professors continued at Purdue in a few poly sci courses I took. Those professors would like to hear how right leaning media (which didn't exist at the time) controlled my thoughts as well.
Yeah, you didn't contest it
You and others ignored it.
But since you're not ignoring it anymore then your complaint falls apart.
1) Blacks are disproportionately victims of murder (you're not ignoring this anymore)
2) 90%+ of the murderers of blacks are blacks (don't think you're ignoring or denying this either)
3) Logically, this explains why blacks are disproportionately convicted of murder.
If you're still denying this then you, like qazplm, are in denial about the truth of race and crime. The same pattern exists for violent crime as well. Do you deny that too?
You and others ignored it.
But since you're not ignoring it anymore then your complaint falls apart.
1) Blacks are disproportionately victims of murder (you're not ignoring this anymore)
2) 90%+ of the murderers of blacks are blacks (don't think you're ignoring or denying this either)
3) Logically, this explains why blacks are disproportionately convicted of murder.
If you're still denying this then you, like qazplm, are in denial about the truth of race and crime. The same pattern exists for violent crime as well. Do you deny that too?
Well, that's a new twist
Original quote: "n most (90%+) instances of blacks being murdered the perpetrator was also black. Logically it follows that, yes, blacks are proportionatey more likely to commit murder."
New quote: "Blacks are disproportionately victims of murder. 90%+ of the murderers of blacks are blacks. Logically, this explains why blacks are disproportionately convicted of murder."
You do understand how very different those assertions are, do you not?
Original quote: "n most (90%+) instances of blacks being murdered the perpetrator was also black. Logically it follows that, yes, blacks are proportionatey more likely to commit murder."
New quote: "Blacks are disproportionately victims of murder. 90%+ of the murderers of blacks are blacks. Logically, this explains why blacks are disproportionately convicted of murder."
You do understand how very different those assertions are, do you not?
Guess I'll have to ask again.......
.....are you blind??? Here's the WHOLE original post, including the subject line:
Re: Are blacks disproportionately victims of murder?
Compared to other racial groups, that is. Please tell me you're not going to deny that they are. (Would that be "racist" if you did?)
Please tell me you're aware that in most (90%+) instances of blacks being murdered the perpetrator was also black. Logically it follows that, yes, blacks are proportionatey more likely to commit murder. The same patterns exist for violent crime in both the race of the victim and the perpetrator. Which is why the prison population is disproportionately black. Unless you'd like to, in the name of being "anti-racist", release more black criminals from prison so they could go back to black neighborhoods and victimize more black people.
I did expand the discussion, but the larger issue is still the same one - systemic racism.
Of course, its Whitey's fault.
BTW, what are violent crime rates like in black countries? Is that also Whitey's fault?
**********
Still avoiding the truth I see. I'm not surprised.
Are blacks disproportionately victims of murder?
.....are you blind??? Here's the WHOLE original post, including the subject line:
Re: Are blacks disproportionately victims of murder?
Compared to other racial groups, that is. Please tell me you're not going to deny that they are. (Would that be "racist" if you did?)
Please tell me you're aware that in most (90%+) instances of blacks being murdered the perpetrator was also black. Logically it follows that, yes, blacks are proportionatey more likely to commit murder. The same patterns exist for violent crime in both the race of the victim and the perpetrator. Which is why the prison population is disproportionately black. Unless you'd like to, in the name of being "anti-racist", release more black criminals from prison so they could go back to black neighborhoods and victimize more black people.
I did expand the discussion, but the larger issue is still the same one - systemic racism.
Of course, its Whitey's fault.
BTW, what are violent crime rates like in black countries? Is that also Whitey's fault?
**********
Still avoiding the truth I see. I'm not surprised.
Are blacks disproportionately victims of murder?
A simple retraction, let alone an apology, would have sufficed....
....the fact you never admit to mis-stepping / mis-speaking on here is pretty telling in my opinion.
Yes, you are the Al Sharpton, in terms of being an agitator, on this board. (NO ONE can be as stupid and blatantly racist as that guy. Well, maybe Indiana's own Andre Carson).
....the fact you never admit to mis-stepping / mis-speaking on here is pretty telling in my opinion.
Yes, you are the Al Sharpton, in terms of being an agitator, on this board. (NO ONE can be as stupid and blatantly racist as that guy. Well, maybe Indiana's own Andre Carson).
Re: I assume
Way to dodge the question but you did answer it with your other postings. Was just curious as to what you would say. My stances on all the shootings-
Utah and SC are the worst shootings.
SC-The cop should have told him to freeze and do not move when he turned back to get his wallet. Shots 1@2 were bad, shots 3@4 were hideous. The guy had his hands up and was backing away. There was no confrontation between victim and police. Victim unarmed. Should be felony charge(s). Conviction likely.
I am also for firing superiors who put a person with PTSD from a shooting incident back on aptrol.
Utah-It appears the cop shot the guy in the back. There was no confrontation between the victim and the police. Every witness says it was real obvious he did not hear due to his headphones on. Victim unarmed. Should be felony charge(s). I wWould think conviction likely.
All I really saw was the video, nothing else.
Ferguson-Witnesses lying, witness manipulated, witnesses coerced and/or bullied. Forensic evidence tends to support some of Wilson's story about brown reaching into the car. Most reliable witneses that are backed by forensics seem to support Wilson more than Brown. Should be a unlawful discharge of firearm and excessive force charge for trial. Not sure what conviction probability would be.
Garner in NY
At a bit of a loss for this one because what the medical examiner said, IMO, does not fit the video. I think the prosecutor and medical examiner screwed up focusing on the "choke" hold and initial part of the take down.. It is real clear that when Garner says he cannot breath he has 4-5 cops on him, and he is on the ground. Not when he is being "choked." Also, there was no damage to his windpipe throat so that throws the "choking" part under the bus IMO.
What should have been pressed here IMO more is the following:
-There had been a DoJ release years ago, and they instructed us in this in the military as well, that heavier people cannot breathe when on their stomach and force is applied. This is really common knowledge among combat arms guys and police IMO. Garner had 4-5 cops on him, even after they had positive control of him.
-After he appeared to be out(although medics claim he was breathing and had a pulse), cops then stood around for 4-5 minutes and did nothing for him, and he was still on his side/stomach, making breathing harder.
-The medics, every time I have seen a paramedic they typically drive up to the scene of the accident/crime/shooting etc. The medics walked in from a distance away when the video clearly shows they could have pulled right up to him, therefore saving time.
Between all of that, I am a bit surprised there is not a criminally negligent homicide charge on the group of cops and the EMT. However, not related to the choke(whcih is where I think they screwed up) but the other actions which I mentioned.
CLE Case
I do think the cops played a part in this by rolling up on the kid/situation real fast. Only time thy should do that is when there is an active shooter.
That said, cops claim they told the kid to put his hands up multiple times. This is not disputed by anyone to my knowledge. The video is real clear that the kid is raising his shirt, and another hand is on his "gun" and he is walking toward the police.
I would have a hard time convicting the officer of a bad shooting. I do think there is likely a charge or discipline for not following protocol on how htey approached the situation.
I am for firing the superiors that put the cop on patrol who had either been forced/flunked out/broke down crying on a shooting range. Some people just do not have it, an the superiors should know this.
I will take your word for it, but I thought it was you that mentioned the cops did nothing for the kid until EMT/FBI arrived. Obviously I would think that would be a fire able offense and negligence of some sort. Conviction likely for that.
This post was edited on 12/8 9:40 AM by Purdue97
Way to dodge the question but you did answer it with your other postings. Was just curious as to what you would say. My stances on all the shootings-
Utah and SC are the worst shootings.
SC-The cop should have told him to freeze and do not move when he turned back to get his wallet. Shots 1@2 were bad, shots 3@4 were hideous. The guy had his hands up and was backing away. There was no confrontation between victim and police. Victim unarmed. Should be felony charge(s). Conviction likely.
I am also for firing superiors who put a person with PTSD from a shooting incident back on aptrol.
Utah-It appears the cop shot the guy in the back. There was no confrontation between the victim and the police. Every witness says it was real obvious he did not hear due to his headphones on. Victim unarmed. Should be felony charge(s). I wWould think conviction likely.
All I really saw was the video, nothing else.
Ferguson-Witnesses lying, witness manipulated, witnesses coerced and/or bullied. Forensic evidence tends to support some of Wilson's story about brown reaching into the car. Most reliable witneses that are backed by forensics seem to support Wilson more than Brown. Should be a unlawful discharge of firearm and excessive force charge for trial. Not sure what conviction probability would be.
Garner in NY
At a bit of a loss for this one because what the medical examiner said, IMO, does not fit the video. I think the prosecutor and medical examiner screwed up focusing on the "choke" hold and initial part of the take down.. It is real clear that when Garner says he cannot breath he has 4-5 cops on him, and he is on the ground. Not when he is being "choked." Also, there was no damage to his windpipe throat so that throws the "choking" part under the bus IMO.
What should have been pressed here IMO more is the following:
-There had been a DoJ release years ago, and they instructed us in this in the military as well, that heavier people cannot breathe when on their stomach and force is applied. This is really common knowledge among combat arms guys and police IMO. Garner had 4-5 cops on him, even after they had positive control of him.
-After he appeared to be out(although medics claim he was breathing and had a pulse), cops then stood around for 4-5 minutes and did nothing for him, and he was still on his side/stomach, making breathing harder.
-The medics, every time I have seen a paramedic they typically drive up to the scene of the accident/crime/shooting etc. The medics walked in from a distance away when the video clearly shows they could have pulled right up to him, therefore saving time.
Between all of that, I am a bit surprised there is not a criminally negligent homicide charge on the group of cops and the EMT. However, not related to the choke(whcih is where I think they screwed up) but the other actions which I mentioned.
CLE Case
I do think the cops played a part in this by rolling up on the kid/situation real fast. Only time thy should do that is when there is an active shooter.
That said, cops claim they told the kid to put his hands up multiple times. This is not disputed by anyone to my knowledge. The video is real clear that the kid is raising his shirt, and another hand is on his "gun" and he is walking toward the police.
I would have a hard time convicting the officer of a bad shooting. I do think there is likely a charge or discipline for not following protocol on how htey approached the situation.
I am for firing the superiors that put the cop on patrol who had either been forced/flunked out/broke down crying on a shooting range. Some people just do not have it, an the superiors should know this.
I will take your word for it, but I thought it was you that mentioned the cops did nothing for the kid until EMT/FBI arrived. Obviously I would think that would be a fire able offense and negligence of some sort. Conviction likely for that.
This post was edited on 12/8 9:40 AM by Purdue97
yes
this board is filled with people admitting to "mis-speaking."
It's also filled with people concerned about political correctness, unless it's something they don't like.
Ya know if the guy had said, hey I don't like that word, could you not use it again, I'd say, sure ok.
When the first response is "you're an asshole" then no I'm not going to apologize or retract.
this board is filled with people admitting to "mis-speaking."
It's also filled with people concerned about political correctness, unless it's something they don't like.
Ya know if the guy had said, hey I don't like that word, could you not use it again, I'd say, sure ok.
When the first response is "you're an asshole" then no I'm not going to apologize or retract.
Re: Are you blind?
There might be evidence to support that claim, but you're not providing any.
No one I've seen is ignoring that fact. What they are ignoring is your fallacious argument that because African Americans are disproportionately victims of murder, African Americans commit more murders.
There might be evidence to support that claim, but you're not providing any.
Re: lol
I can't believe I'm going to say this, but I agree. Retard is a word that needs to be taken out of our vocabulary.
Re: I assume
This is the most reasonable and rational perspective I've seen. Especially regarding Ferguson.
Wow
Its amazing what uncomfortable truths about race will do to people's minds.
No one I've seen is ignoring that fact.
Yes, db and qazplm are doing so.
What they are ignoring is your fallacious argument that because African Americans are disproportionately victims of murder, African Americans commit more murders.
And there's the craziness. You intentionally leave out the fact (something even qazplm acknowledges) that over 90% of the murderers of blacks are other blacks. Its not an argument but a fact. So is the first one (that blacks are more likely to be victims of murder). Put the two together and you can see why blacks disproportionately commit murder. Its simple logic. But the poison of political correctness will not allow you to see it.
Its amazing what uncomfortable truths about race will do to people's minds.
No one I've seen is ignoring that fact.
Yes, db and qazplm are doing so.
What they are ignoring is your fallacious argument that because African Americans are disproportionately victims of murder, African Americans commit more murders.
And there's the craziness. You intentionally leave out the fact (something even qazplm acknowledges) that over 90% of the murderers of blacks are other blacks. Its not an argument but a fact. So is the first one (that blacks are more likely to be victims of murder). Put the two together and you can see why blacks disproportionately commit murder. Its simple logic. But the poison of political correctness will not allow you to see it.
Glad you picked that example
Your other quote actually does make logical sense.
This one? No sense at all. Zero. Zip.
Now, if you are trying to sneak in a new fact now, such as "overwhelmingly more black people are murdered than XYZ other ethnic group," then your point begins to make partial sense. But that's not what you said before, or at least you didn't give a statistic. I only saw the question, and the assertion that 90%+ B/B murders means blacks are "proportionately more likely to commit murder." And that by itself makes no sense, "logically," to use your favorite word.
Also: If you seriously want to compare the killing behaviors of various ethnic groups, then it probably makes sense to segment the killings by type. Was it a stranger or an acquaintance? More specifically, was it a domestic situation, robbery, drugs, gangs, confrontation/fight with stranger, or other?
Your other quote actually does make logical sense.
This one? No sense at all. Zero. Zip.
Now, if you are trying to sneak in a new fact now, such as "overwhelmingly more black people are murdered than XYZ other ethnic group," then your point begins to make partial sense. But that's not what you said before, or at least you didn't give a statistic. I only saw the question, and the assertion that 90%+ B/B murders means blacks are "proportionately more likely to commit murder." And that by itself makes no sense, "logically," to use your favorite word.
Also: If you seriously want to compare the killing behaviors of various ethnic groups, then it probably makes sense to segment the killings by type. Was it a stranger or an acquaintance? More specifically, was it a domestic situation, robbery, drugs, gangs, confrontation/fight with stranger, or other?
Re: Wow
In the initial post you made making the connection, you said NOTHING about "90% of the murderers of blacks are other blacks." You made an IMMEDIATE and FALLACIOUS jump from victimhood to perpetration. Only AFTER your mistake was pointed out did you add the other statement to support your argument.
See if you can follow along:
You made a logical error in one of your posts. It got pointed out. You add additional information that sort of fills that gap and fixes that mistake. Then, you proceed to act like a complete dirtbag and pretend that you never made a mistake.
Are you really this dense?
In the initial post you made making the connection, you said NOTHING about "90% of the murderers of blacks are other blacks." You made an IMMEDIATE and FALLACIOUS jump from victimhood to perpetration. Only AFTER your mistake was pointed out did you add the other statement to support your argument.
See if you can follow along:
You made a logical error in one of your posts. It got pointed out. You add additional information that sort of fills that gap and fixes that mistake. Then, you proceed to act like a complete dirtbag and pretend that you never made a mistake.
Re: Wow
Good grief, Joe, you're certainly not conducting yourself as a man of GOD.
Judging by what you're posting on this forum, you're no more a "Pastor" than the "Reverend" Jesse Jackson, or the "Reverend" Al Sharpton.
Do you really hold yourself out to be a PASTOR?
Good grief, Joe, you're certainly not conducting yourself as a man of GOD.
Judging by what you're posting on this forum, you're no more a "Pastor" than the "Reverend" Jesse Jackson, or the "Reverend" Al Sharpton.
Re: Wow
Thought this for a while now. Me thinks God/Jesus would be none to happy with a pastor talking so condescending towards another person and to call them names. If I were a deacon/elder a church and my pastor spoke to people like this...I think I'd be having a little conversation with the church about having him removed.
Ohhhh poor fellow, the tough guy hunk who calls others stupid and dumbass had his lil feelings hurt by a pastor. He gonna go tell on him
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Re: Wow
I have tried being rational and reasonable, only to be repeatedly responded to with "LOL!" and being called a "dumbass," among other things. I asked the above question in actual seriousness - I have a hard time believing that GMM is not intelligent enough to understand that the conversation in question was not about his ideological point but about one particular instance of misused logic.
I think - no, I know - that if you put my posts next to yours or GMM's and ask who is disrespectful and insulting, the answer is clear. You only dislike me because I disagree with your ideology and am able to cogently explain why.
That said, there is an easy solution to this - one that I should have done a while ago.
I'm condescending? Hello pot, my name is kettle.
I have tried being rational and reasonable, only to be repeatedly responded to with "LOL!" and being called a "dumbass," among other things. I asked the above question in actual seriousness - I have a hard time believing that GMM is not intelligent enough to understand that the conversation in question was not about his ideological point but about one particular instance of misused logic.
I think - no, I know - that if you put my posts next to yours or GMM's and ask who is disrespectful and insulting, the answer is clear. You only dislike me because I disagree with your ideology and am able to cogently explain why.
That said, there is an easy solution to this - one that I should have done a while ago.
Reading comprehension much? He never hurt my feelings - his remarks weren't even directed at me. Just an observation.
Is it just me or are the libs around here awfully sensitive/touchy/intolerant more than usual lately? Was it the November elections? Could it be Obama's failed presidency? Learning the gentle giant was not so gentle? Whatever it was, they are certainly showing their true colors.
Careful man, he may go full bore high school civics class on you. That's carnage game programmers have yet to be able to simulate.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Re: Wow
There is a significant difference between condescension and sarcasm. If we really want to talk about Jesus, though, we can talk about the fact that Jesus used a great deal of sarcasm - and perhaps even condescension - with both the Pharisees and the disciples. What do you think the point of "O you of little faith" - a frequent saying of Jesus - really is?
You have this self-righteous anger thing going on that I find ironic. If I were a hardcore conservative like you and used the exact same rhetorical techniques in defense of your ideology, you would doubtless have nothing to say. To be honest, that's why I find your "observations" to be less than credible. I have recognize and, in the (recent) past, apologized when I legitimately crossed a line. Sarcastically asking someone if they are dense is not crossing line...except in your world...and then only if the person asking has a different ideological worldview.
This will be my last response to you before I hit the ignore button and end this nonsense.
There is a significant difference between condescension and sarcasm. If we really want to talk about Jesus, though, we can talk about the fact that Jesus used a great deal of sarcasm - and perhaps even condescension - with both the Pharisees and the disciples. What do you think the point of "O you of little faith" - a frequent saying of Jesus - really is?
You have this self-righteous anger thing going on that I find ironic. If I were a hardcore conservative like you and used the exact same rhetorical techniques in defense of your ideology, you would doubtless have nothing to say. To be honest, that's why I find your "observations" to be less than credible. I have recognize and, in the (recent) past, apologized when I legitimately crossed a line. Sarcastically asking someone if they are dense is not crossing line...except in your world...and then only if the person asking has a different ideological worldview.
Re: Wow
So calling someone a dirtbag is just sarcasm? You can't even be honest about what you've said. Your church must be so proud.
Re: the irony in this series of posts
This post was edited on 12/8 10:35 PM by beardownboiler
You oughta know.
This post was edited on 12/8 10:35 PM by beardownboiler
Right, your putdown was so strong I just capitulated to your correctness. It had nothing to do with the fact that I didn't even read your life history and determine that nothing I say is going to convince your narrow mind of anything other than your strongly held, deeply rooted beliefs that you affirm every day by pledging allegiance to Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh.
Challenge your own ideas for once in your life. Too many conservatives are convinced everything is black-and-white. I can appreciate the fact that most liberals at least see some shades of gray.
Challenge your own ideas for once in your life. Too many conservatives are convinced everything is black-and-white. I can appreciate the fact that most liberals at least see some shades of gray.
Latest posts
-
-
A Revolution of Common Sense - A Seminal Shift in Values- Latest: New Pal Boiler
-
