-->
@Theweakeredge
Your asking me to prove a truism
a day in the life of sue, a republican
Posts
Total:
238
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Demonstrate why its a truism, all you are doing is providing empty assertions. How about this, I do not believe a word you type, until you provide evidence that it's true, does that make it easier for you to understand my position here?
-->
@Theweakeredge
This is a basic fact
-->
@Dr.Franklin
No it's not
"But these perceptions are not supported empirically; instead, as demonstrated below, theyare refuted by the preponderance of scientific evidence. Both contemporary and historical studies, including official crime statistics and victimization surveys since the early 1990s, data fromthe last three decennial censuses, national and regional surveys in areas of immigrant concentration,and investigations carried out by major government commissions over the past century, haveshown instead that immigration is associated with lower crime rates and lower incarcerationrates."
You are factually incorrect
-->
@Theweakeredge
Compared to native African Americans on that scale, yes, but immigrant cities vs native cities no
It is a truism that has aid and black crime rates are high,this is due to the lack of fathers and family in those societies
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Responsible fatherhood only goes so far in a world plagued by institutionalized oppression. For black children, the presence of fathers would not alter racist drug laws, prosecutorial protection of police officers who kill, mass school closures or the poisoning of their water. By focusing on the supposed absence of black fathers, we allow ourselves to pretend this oppression is not real, while also further scapegoating black men for America's societal ills.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I failed to see any evidence of your claims. And the white crime rates are higher proportioned to the population, which is what that scale shows, you are still factually wrong.
-->
@FLRW
For black children, the presence of fathers would not alter racist drug laws.
"Don't do drugs"
Prosecutorial protection of police officers who kill.
"Don't do drugs"
mass school closures
"Don't do drugs." "RESPECT your teacher. Don't take your education for granted"
or the poisoning of their water.
"Ask your mother" https://youtu.be/Vet6AHmq3_s?t=176
-->
@Theweakeredge
I'd imagine the rate's lower largely because of fear of deportation, and that criminal aliens get deported and the one's that remain in the United States aren't the criminal type.
-->
@Death23
Also, many illegals will just quietly become a victim of crime off the books and rarely call the police for domestic violence or other violent crimes for obvious reasons.
70% according to this.
-->
@Death23
Its a combination of things, but I imagine those to be some common reasons. But at this point Franklin, i refuse to call him a doctor without proof of a doctorate at this point, will refuse anything that doesn't conform to his close-minded view.
-->
@Death23
And then someone says..oh illegals aren't calling the cops? That must obviously mean that illegal invaders are naturally less criminally violent!
Obviously.
-->
@Greyparrot
No one made that argument... at least not here... you are presenting a strawman and sarcastically deconstructing it (not even well I might add), so perhaps engage with actual arguments and sources presented. Perhaps make yourself a serious point, or is it all laughs with you? I find it hard to take you seriously whenever you so often resort to the same method of argumentation.
-->
@Theweakeredge
nope, Hispanic crime rates are higher than whites, that is a fact, we need to get rid of single motherhood
-->
@FLRW
none of that exists of what you described, there is no systemic racism or racial societal ills, the only problem is fatherhood
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Prove anything you're saying. You are factually incorrect.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Ah, the link between criminality and fatherlessness again. So ingrained is the assumption that crime rates always go up that conservatives making this argument do not even see the need to account for the incredible, world-historical drop in violence that has accompanied the collapse of the nuclear family. Even if you leave out the late-'80s/early-'90s spike in crime, arrests fell about 40 percent from 1980 to 2010 while father-absent boys increased almost 50 percent.
-->
@FLRW
The United States has the largest proportion of prison inmates in the world.
-->
@Conway
Probably the world's leader in fatherlessness as well.
Apparently, welfare checks and child support are poor substitutes for an actual Dad in the home.
-->
@Greyparrot
@Dr.Franklin
This all ties in to the current liberal progressive push to feminize men.
They must first establish that men/masculinity is not valuable/unique/or needed in society. Then on to masculinity being "toxic".
They will throw "studies" at you, and assume correlation is causation. Political correctness can cause an otherwise smart person to hold beliefs that are obviously contradicted by reality, like "fatherless homes have no effect on children."
For example, this ludicrous thread attempts to take as established fact that every advancement in society today is directly the result liberalism. How do you debate people who hold falsehoods as axioms?
-->
@ethang5
How do you debate people who hold falsehoods as axioms?
You have the balls to speak of "axioms"!?
Don't make me laugh. You are in to position to talk of axioms are you, hypocrite. How many biblical "axioms" have been established as accepted fact.?
-->
@ethang5
we need to celebrate masculinity
-->
@Stephen
You don't know what an "axiom" is do you?
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Exactly Doc! The repression of masculinity and the glorification of feminazism are tied together.
-->
@ethang5
Very true
-->
@bmdrocks21
It's been measured and agreed universally that illegal immigrants commit less crime than natives, but nonetheless, I understand your frustration that some are responsible for the deaths of Americans. The question for me is the cost-benefit analysis of programs like ICE and the harm they cause to immigrants who are not seeking to do harm and just looking for a better life in the U.S. While I agree that immigrants absolutely need to be screened and documented, and I agree with quota/regulation programs in some capacity for immigrants, I don't agree with treating all illegal immigrants as violent criminals (i.e. putting them in a cage) or kicking out positive contributors to society. I think a lot of concessions and negotiations need to be made by both sides confronting harsh realities.
I didn't say black people blame white people for all of their problems, I referred specifically to how "academics" always frame the issue. I gave an example of the type of language used to shift all blame to a "white supremacy" or "systemically racist" boogeyman, while utterly ignoring other factors that contribute to the disparity- as if a disparity alone is somehow an indication of malice.
I'm pretty sure you did say that. Regardless what other factors are you referring to? Most acknowledge that poverty is a huge contributor to crime. We know that on balance more black people live in poverty than white people. We know that systemic racism has led to black people having more likelihood to live in poverty. Not only did the historic barriers of slavery and Jim Crow prevent them from accumulating wealth, but so did red lining and other things. We know that black Americans encounter inequalities in education and have fewer resources during their formative years. We know there is discrimination in the workplace. We know that high incarceration rates leads to ineffective parenting, and the reason for higher incarceration rates among blacks is absolutely related to racism and other systemic issues in law enforcement. I can cite statistics if you need, but my point is that it is not inaccurate or wrong to note how racism has impacted black crime. So again I'll ask "what other factors contribute to the disparity," and even if there are other factors regarding immorality or lack of personal accountability, why is it bad to educate people on the systemic issues that absolutely exist?
I'll put this in simple terms: There is a disparity. Only explanation for disparity-"systemic" racism. Who has been the country majority with "systemic" power? White people So who is therefore blamed for supposed "systemic" racism? White people/
As a reminder, you gave a statistic about 16% of STEM workers being brown. That doesn't prove anything about racism being imaginary. Now as far as this explanation ^ your point seems to be that just because there are less brown people in STEM doesn't necessarily mean that white people/systemic racism is to blame. I agree with that, but you haven't proven (and this statistic about STEM does not prove) that racism is imaginary.
Disparities in underlying health conditions blamed on- you guessed it- racism.They never actually mention data on the differences in diets between races (fast food/fried food consumption-type data).
It looks like you disproved your own point with the quotes you gave. It seems like people are absolutely recognizing that black people are unhealthier on balance and they argue that it's BECAUSE of poverty. They lack the money to eat healthy or have health insurance. I completely disagree that people aren't talking about things like unhealthy lifestyles including drug use (even though blacks don't use more drugs than white people on balance). Academics, liberals and everyone else you're railing against absolutely do note how poverty and circumstance of where people live + their experiences fuel unhealthy personal decisions. That's like... their entire point. Again I think you are just completely and totally ignorant to all of the information out there about this. You claim nobody's talking about it but that is literally all they're talking about and that's what all of their research is about.
Simply put, if you solve fatherless homes alone, you will get rid of most of the disparity on the poverty end.
Not true although it is true that two parent households are much better off. That's why people note how all of the policies that target blacks and incarcerate them at higher rates than whites despite similar or less instance of criminality (like drug use) is an example of systemic racism that hurts blacks.
Jim Crow- badTwo decades later- definitely going to still be some effects(in my opinion rather small after ~2 generations have been born), but certainly not enough to still be responsible for these large disparities.
That's not true. Most Americans' wealth is tied to home ownership which black people experienced systemic barriers to reaping the rewards of. Nonetheless there is still discrimination, lack of opportunity, lack of resources, etc. But my point here is that you are saying "muh Jim Crow" as if the notes about Jim Crow are being exaggerated or lied about when they are not. There is no need for you to say "muh Jim Crow" except to diminish the long-terms systemic harms these immoral policies created. What if someone said "muh Holocaust" or "muh 9/11?" They would sound like a piece of shit person right so put your thinking cap on and figure out what I'm saying.
I am not making a Constitutional case that they have to use state resources to apply federal immigration laws. That is irrelevant. I am blaming states that don't care to help deport illegal aliens.
You don't get to rewrite history about what you said and how I corrected your ignorance of the 10th amendment. It's right there in black and white. You lamented CA not helping ICE to deport illegal immigrants. I asked if you supported CA's state autonomy to govern itself per their own voters' wishes, and you said "No, immigration law is federal in nature" in post #34 which is wrong. Per the 10th amendment CA does not have to comply with federal immigration law. The feds are free to pursue illegal immigrants in CA but CA doesn't have to help them.
Taking in large amounts of largely uneducated workers depresses wages for domestic high-school-educated workers and prices them out of historically good job for them like construction.
I can counter this point but out of curiosity, why lean toward the auth right with this perspective? Bernie shares in this view ya know.
Probably why working class people are becoming more depressed/resorting to drugs and suicide.
I see. So working class people are becoming depressed and turning to drugs (and subsequently crime) because they're low-income, is that right? So what you're saying is that if a certain group is more likely to be low-income and experience poverty, they are more likely to make poor decisions that lead to poor circumstances. Gotcha.
Although it kinda sounds like you're crying MUH IMMIGRANTS to blame them for the working class who are suffering. Why is it systemic immigration policies that is the cause of their demise? Maybe it's their own personal irresponsibility like drug use or not pursuing higher education as the reason they're all dropping like flies and can't find good work. All the educated people in Silicon Valley and Wall Street are finding work. Maybe these people should take a look in the mirror and stop trying to blame systemic policy.
-->
@bmdrocks21
Tee hee, I don't think the deer's family is going to sue you for killing it- which was the whole point (you bringing up tort law)
Oh lawdy lol. I was kinda liking the other discussion so I didn't wanna talk about guns too much, but this is a blatant straw man and misrepresentation of what this conversation was about. I said the purpose of guns is to kill; that's what they're designed for and if they are not able to kill then they are not functioning properly. You said no, guns aren't always used for killing - sometimes they're used to hunt! (LMAO) You are now saying that because a deer won't sue you, that somehow discredits my point about guns being used to kill them. What a completely bizarre attempt at trying to gloss over your silly mistake.
I never said that guns are ONLY for killing, but guns are designed to kill. That is their purpose. Guns that are only meant for shooting targets like pellet guns or paint ball guns or water guns are considered in a different class and category.
No, a gun manufacturer doesn't have to sell to you
Thank you for acknowledging this point. We have no right to buy a gun.
That is why I DON'T support the same treatment as a drug company.
As I said, you can disagree with holding gun manufacturers liable the way you would hold manufacturers of other products liable. There is a legitimate debate to be had about it. But there is still a precedence and legal basis for this option which was my point.