Why are so many resilient to fact-based truth regarding black criminality?

Author: TWS1405

Posts

Total: 427
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Ramshutu
First and foremost, your continuous penchant for setting up your retorts with the obvious strawman argument by relentlessly quoting me out of context is very sophomoric, and not without the direct appearance of being rather sanctimonious while doing it.

The links I provided I read. You’re just reading the information within each one incorrectly by cherry-picking the part(s) you think you can pervert into a believable rebuttal to my clearly stated position(s).
 

“Self-Perceptions of Black Americans: Self-Esteem and Personal Efficacy on JSTOR
 
Self esteem high, and self efficacy lower - one data point in 1988 - does not support your argument. Contradicts pride (self Esteem), and doesn’t provide a comparator for determination. You probably didn’t read this one.
 

You simply do not understand/comprehend the intended purpose in citing this data. Despite the fact that it is antiquated, the underlining personal issues addressed are still very much relevant present day. I am sure you have heard of Dinesh D’Souza, if not, no matter. He wrote a well-researched book back in the 90s that expanded/augmented beyond the data provided in that link in a book entitled, “The End of Racism.” He covered a lot of data regarding most, if not all, the things I have brought up within this forum. A large portion discusses that which was covered in the cited study, that continued well beyond the 80s. Especially the phenomena of ‘Acting White.’ It was this book that really began/peaked my interest into learning more about black American history, to include my own personal experiences interacting with black Americans growing up, in the military, and afterwards.
 

The Legacy of Self-hatred in the Black Community - The Black Detour
 
Blog post opinion piece that you didn’t read - no mention of pride or determination; not about “self hate” as in hating ones self - but “hating one’s own kind”. Doesn’t support your point; the opinion traces causes of black hatred of other blacks to white racism.
 

Reading comprehension matters. Another example of you not understanding/comprehending that which you are reading/reviewing. Moreover, dismissing it in its entirety just because it is a blog piece is a genetic fallacy. This citation is about the self-sabotage of black Americans, an issue elegantly covered by scholar John McWhorter in his book, “Losing the Race: Self-Sabotage in Black America.” He pleaded for African Americans to address three problems he identified as – separatism, anti-intellectualism (that ‘acting white’ phenomena), and “a cult of victimology.”
 

Restoring self esteem and black pride - Consciousness.co.za Magazine
Another magazine opinion piece - not data. Traces cause of lack of self esteem to generational racism. You clearly didn’t even read this:
 
“I recently asked myself what steps we were taking as Africans to restore the self esteem of our people. These are people who’ve dealt with racism, western imperialism and marginalization; being told that they are less off and undeserving of proper human status.”
 

Yet another example of your lack of reading comprehension on your part. This citation speaks to John McWhorter’s subsequent book, “Winning the Race: Beyond the Crisis in Black America.” McWhorter declared in his book that “one more in the line of arguments that poor blacks’ problems are primarily due to culture rather than economics.” Another point made in his book is that, “It is a cultural matter that welfare was “the product of a system white leftists created that allowed blacks to realize the worst of human nature, in discouraging individual responsibility”—leftists such as LBJ and Moynihan, one assumes.”
 

Why I hate being a black man | Orville Lloyd Douglas | The Guardian
 
Another opinion piece. Not data. Not about pride in the sense of pride in one self, but not liking how he is perceived. Traces hate about how they are viewed being black to perception of blackness of other people and continuing racism.
 
You clearly didn’t read this either:
 
“Who would want to have this dark skin, broad nose, large thick lips, and wake up in the morning being despised by the rest of the world?”
 

Yea, I read it. Are you sitting there telling me that the author of this “opinion” piece, a black man, has no say or stake in this discussion? Is his experience not data? Are not the experiences of black Americans either individually or collectively, not data? According to you it appears not. So, everyone can just automatically disqualify the National Crime Victimization Survey from the Bureau of Justice Statistics then, eh!?! That is what you are inferring here with your obvious genetic fallacy.
 

Charles Barkley and the Plague of 'Unintelligent' Blacks - The Atlantic
 
Opinion piece. Not data. Not about pride. Not really about pride. I don’t think you read it.
 

Yet another ignorant genetic fallacy. No need to keep referring to your logical fallacies any further. They are quite clear. And rather pathetic given your clear lack of reading comprehension skills and ability to follow along with the discussion that I am presenting you.
 
The rest of your diatribe (to include your subsequent retort on data this, data that) is what is truly hilarious. You come off as somewhat intelligent, but when you open your mouth and speak, you sound like an ignoramus. You’re like a child afflicted with ADHD who forgot to take their medicine, completely incapable of drawing a straight line between to interrelated points.
 
Suggested reading list for you:
John McWhorter, Woke Racism
Shelby Steele, White Guilt
Jason Riley, Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed
Ron Christie, Acting White: The Curious History of a Racial Slur
Erin Horvat & Carla O’Connor, Beyond Acting White: Reframing the Debate on Black Student Achievement
Candace Owens, Blackout
Brandon Tatum, Beaten Black and Blue
 
If you need more, I have 400 other suggestions.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,303
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TWS1405
If you need more, I have 400 other suggestions.
in other words,

you are unable to fabricate a convincing argument

and so you decide to make an appeal to complexity (an imaginary library) which is an appeal to ignorance
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,275
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@TWS1405
A Zedku for TWS1405


Stuff happens and stuff changes,

And clever people make a living from it.

Though it's usually only the clever people that read the words of other clever people.

Leaving the vast majority to carry on regardless.

Wherein stuff happens and stuff changes,

Relative to the evolution of everything and everyone.

And for sure,

It makes for an interesting discussion.

Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,569
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Athias
Receipts?

These are facts from logic and historical reasoning. I have no particular source I am just inferring.

Criticizing the source, but not the point.
It's utter bullshit. Blacks were nowhere in Ancient Sumeria
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
I can "fabricate" an argument and have, it's just being misconstrued and cherry-picked into strawman arguments.

My library is not fictional.

TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Athias
-->@TWS1405
Black is the adjective/descriptor for the noun, criminality. It identifies the nature of the topic I want to cover, but it in no way infers directly or indirectly that I am stating as any measure of fact-based evidence that blacks, as a race, in and of themselves, are racially prone to criminality. I am merely identifying what part of the population I want to address regarding criminality that America has to do deal with.
Why are you parsing criminality among demographics if the identifier you've chosen to create distinction, i.e. so-called "race," provides no particular qualification? Then what is your point?

The obvious point is that I am focusing in on criminological data that specifically involved the black demographic of the population and no other specific demographics as the primary subject matter of the discussion. Duh! Also, a demographic doesn't equal a qualification. 

I could have just as easily said white criminality, Asian criminality...makes no difference, as it merely addresses a specific part of the population (the adjective) that I want to discuss regarding a measure of criminality (the noun).
If you could've just as easily stated so-called "white" criminality, and so-called "Asian" criminality, then why does the subject of discussion create distinction if so-called "race" does not qualify your claims of fact?
Again, the distinction is based on the demographics and NOT qualifications. 

Still the same. Black males are not [the] black race. They are a demographic segment with a high level of violent criminality that surpasses other demographic segments. I cannot just say some males are more violent than other males.
Actually you can. That would be a statement which does not seek to render conclusions that bear so-called "racial" qualifications--though not absent of sex-based qualifications. 
Again, no qualifications but rather demography. Big difference. 

Makes no more sense than putting out an APB for a male in their mid-age at about 5-6' tall with a shaved head. Well, okay. What specific age. What clothing. But more importantly, what is the adjective describing their racial demographic.  
Not even remotely analogous. You've described physical aspects for a physical search.
Yes, it is very analogous. A physical search is meaningless unless it is narrowed down more by demography of racial background. 

No, I am not.
Yes, you are.
Quoting out of context leaves such retorts like this 100% vague and meaningless. 

Since the very specific crimes I have/am addressing are specific to a subset of the population
Which you sought to qualify on the basis of so-called "racial" distinction.
There is no qualification, it is fact based on the data that the demographic committing the crimes cited are distinctly categorized by black (vs white or Hispanic). 

that subset needs to be described just like a suspect in an APB needs to be described.
Again, not even remotely analogous.
Yes, it is. Denialist. 

The data is broken down by racial demographic descriptors in order to separate the criminological data into their respective subsets to show who is doing what and to whom. 
And how do distinctions in so-called "race" contextualize "who is doing what and to whom"?

If you affirm any response to this question then you are tacitly admitting that you are making qualifications (of criminality) based on race.
If you negate any contextualization race offers, then you are tacitly admitting to an irrelevant platitude.
Distinction does not equal qualification. 
Stop making semantics arguments. It's not only disingenuous, but also ignorant. 


Nothing I have said in regard to what the criminological data shows as to who is doing what and to whom in greater numbers than others is all factually accurate.
No, you "assume" it's factually accurate because you trust the source. But I'm not arguing against "incidence." My contention is with the interpretation you've gleaned from this "factually accurate" data in order to render your race-based qualifications of criminality.
If you are so full of contention, then prove me wrong; prove the "factually accurate" data wrong. Stop whining about it, and just prove it.

It has a lot to do with everything whereas the point I am making is concerned. It matters not where the factual information comes from, white or black, the left simply refuses to accept the reality that the crime statistics provided are not attributable to black males in the population for which those numbers are clearly representative thereof.
Is it that the left denies  the statistics, or is it that they deny the conclusion you've drawn from them?
As I have said repeatedly, they deny the statistics as being attributable the small segment of black males committing the violent person crimes and not my conclusions.

It's denialism. It's intellectual cowardice. 
Your stance isn't much better. It borders on ignorance of statistical logic, ignorance of logic in a general sense--i.e. your composition fallacies--and inconsistent extensions which lead to unsubstantiated conclusions.
My stance is far better. Claiming otherwise without proving it speaks volumes. 

Well, if I am citing Sowell that means I agree with his definition and elaboration on that definition of black culture harming some within the black community.
Maybe you do, but I'd like to read it in your own words if you'll oblige me. Because I'm not engaging Thomas Sowell, who cannot defend his description at the moment. I'm engaging you. And your description and your application of that description is far more valuable and relevant than anyone you can mention. Your argument functions on your understanding, not theirs. So once again, what is so-called, "black culture"?

My argument functions on my understanding of their definitions and explanations. It's tantamount to looking up the term in the damn dictionary. 
I am not going to rephrase what they say/said about the part of black culture that is harming that specific segment of the black community that finds itself in generational poverty, suffering from the victimhood mentality, parroting what black & white guilt liberal so-called leaders spoon feed them (e.g. lies, divisive racist rhetoric towards cops, whites and other races & nationalities), 72% out of wedlock birth rates, fatherless boys going from a poorly parented single parent home through the pipeline into prison, and of course...the street/gang life with endless trouble and conflicts with law enforcement, not to mention intraracial violence. 

I do not see the need to mince words or paraphrase something he already said when you can hear it for yourself. And according to you, you are already well aware of his definition. So why do I need to repeat him or Ben Shapiro or John McWhorter or Larry Elder or numerous others who have clearly identified and described the black culture harming blacks in the past to present day. 
Because, it's your argument; unless you're just parroting and regurgitating descriptions you don't completely understand. I'm well aware that sensationalists like Ben Shapiro, John McWhorter, and Larry Elder understand their own descriptions. But they're not DART members--at least to my knowledge.
You cannot claim I am regurgitating anything & not understanding it without proving it. Whining about it isn't proof. 

JFC, you and that other clown do nothing but bitch wine and moan about my position and have yet to even address the underlining argument. Until either of you do, I will not respond any further. This Dunning Kruger display of a bitch fest is over with. 
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,569
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Ehyeh
'm unsure why you think you can deal with absolutes with it like you may be able to do with nose structure, bone density, or muscle composition between different races/ethnic groups. 
Because racial/ethnic groups are absolute. They are defining characteristics for each ethnic/racial group. It's not like I am using mental gymnastic here.
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Because racial/ethnic groups are absolute.
Not sure about that. 

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,303
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TWS1405
I can "fabricate" an argument
just not a convincing one
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
What part of what I have put forth thus far has not been "convincing," in your mind? 

Don't just claim it, prove it.

Oh, and I see you ignored the proof of my personal library. Typical. 
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Danielle
He said defining "characteristics," as in physical differences...not genetic. 

He is referring to what one immediately sees in order to have some measure of identification in order to understand who and what the other person is, their background, ethnicity and/or nationality. Not what they cannot see...their genome. 
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Ramshutu
@Athias
I wager one or both of you have not seen either Uncle Tom or Uncle Tom II. 

The following two videos show/disclose exactly what I have been conveying herein and then some. 



Doubt either of you will watch them, denialists rarely do. 
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@TWS1405
He said defining "characteristics," as in physical differences...not genetic. 
Lmao how the fuck do you think your physical attributes are determined? It's genetics, genius.

I can't believe you're still tagging me in posts even though I've ignored you the last 10 times lol. I'm sure someone else will entertain you by arguing back but I have no interest. 
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Danielle
"Lmao how the fuck do you think your physical attributes are determined? It's genetics, genius."

>>You're a real piece of work, you're the sanctimonious poster child of the Dunning Kruger Effect. 

Genetics cannot be seen on a cellular level, you idiot pseudo-genius. FFS. Not all alleles result in a specific physical characteristic, you twit. Genetics are not always a guarantee of manifested physical characteristics.  

"I can't believe you're still tagging me in posts even though I've ignored you the last 10 times lol. I'm sure someone else will entertain you by arguing back but I have no interest. ""

>> When you make stupid comments, I will tag you in them. 

Yeah, you have no interest = translation, "I am not intelligent enough to engage with you."

Intellectual coward that you so clearly are. 


Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@TWS1405
That's right. I'll engage with everyone else who disagrees with me on this subject except for you. It's because I'm terrified of you and you alone. Everybody else's arguments I can handle but not yours. You have me terrified. I'm shaking. 
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Danielle
Thank you.

You just demonstrated to the proverbial "T" that you are not only an intellectual coward, but the poster child for the Dunning Kruger Effect. Kudos! clap clap 
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,569
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Danielle
7.4% difference in genes and alles is quite a bit actually.
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
historically, the poor are more likely to both commit and be victims of "violent crime"
How does economic status dictate moral content and responsibility?
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Dr.Franklin
These are facts from logic and historical reasoning. I have no particular source I am just inferring.
On which facts from logic and what historical reasoning are you basing your inferences?

It's utter bullshit. Blacks were nowhere in Ancient Sumeria
Educate me.
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,569
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Athias
On which facts from logic and what historical reasoning are you basing your inferences?
The historical consensus.

Educate me.
No, rather you educate ME. Because every single historian in existence disagrees with you
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@TWS1405
The obvious point is that I am focusing in on criminological data that specifically involved the black demographic of the population and no other specific demographics as the primary subject matter of the discussion.
That is not "a point." That's simply what you're doing. If so-called "race" does not qualify criminality, then why does your "focus" lie on racial distinction?

Again, the distinction is based on the demographics and NOT qualifications. 

Again, no qualifications but rather demography. Big difference. 
Why are you lying? If you were simply making an argument of demography then you could've not only omitted your alleged victimization by alleged liberal PC tyrants,  but also chosen a less charged--or a more neutral--title. You instigated a politicized discussion on the subject of so-called, "black criminality." You continue to argue that you aren't making any racial qualifications, yet submit statements like, "clearly demonstrate [so-called] black males are far more of a 'problem for America' than what the left claims" which is value-based, not statistical.

Believe me, I couldn't possibly concern myself less with your political leanings, your views of ethnicity and so-called, "race." But your attempts to insult everyone's intelligence with nothing more than "I'm just mentioning 'black criminality' for the sake of it; not that I'm arguing that 'black' qualifies the criminality that I'm mentioning on whim" is nothing more than some Betty Crocker campaign to patholigize the so-called "black" demographic.

Yes, it is very analogous.
Define analogous. Because I don't think you know its meaning.

A physical search is meaningless unless it is narrowed down more by demography of racial background. 
Not analogous. Physical searches require physical content--i.e. physical descriptions. Criminality is premised on legality and ethics. Neither require physical description.

Quoting out of context leaves such retorts like this 100% vague and meaningless. 
No one is quoting you out of context. The utility in logging written/typed statements is that one could always go back and look.

There is no qualification, it is fact based on the data that the demographic committing the crimes cited are distinctly categorized by black (vs white or Hispanic). 
If there's no qualification, then why ARE YOU comparing variance in crimes committed by so-called "race," e.g. ("Black" vs. "White" or "Hispanic")? What information can this comparison possibly provide other than qualifications based on racial distinction?

Yes, it is. Denialist. 
What am I denying, other than that you're not arguing racial qualifications?

Distinction does not equal qualification. 
Non sequitur. No one has argued that the distinction in and of itself is a qualification. One is arguing that references to these distinctions in order to make value-based arguments (i.e. The data across all interrelated relative areas, clearly demonstrate [so-called] black males are far more of a 'problem for America' than what the left claims.) is a qualification.

Stop making semantics arguments. It's not only disingenuous, but also ignorant. 
Define semantics, disingenuous, and ignorant, because I don't think you know their meanings.

If you are so full of contention, then prove me wrong
It's not incumbent upon me to "prove you wrong"; it's incumbent upon you to prove your arguments, "right."

prove the "factually accurate" data wrong
Non sequitur. My contention is not against your so-called, "data."

Stop whining about it, and just prove it.
Define whining. Because, I don't think you know its meaning.

As I have said repeatedly, they deny the statistics as being attributable the small segment of black males committing the violent person crimes and not my conclusions.
I'm not going to pretend to have a modicum of authority as to what this nebulous, "they," think.

My stance is far better.
No it's not.

Claiming otherwise without proving it speaks volumes. 
How convenient.

My argument functions on my understanding of their definitions and explanations.
Convey this alleged understanding by providing your own description. What is, again, so-called, "Black Culture"?

It's tantamount to looking up the term in the damn dictionary. 
All the more reason.

I am not going to rephrase what they say/said about the part of black culture that is harming that specific segment of the black community that finds itself in generational poverty, suffering from the victimhood mentality, parroting what black & white guilt liberal so-called leaders spoon feed them (e.g. lies, divisive racist rhetoric towards cops, whites and other races & nationalities), 72% out of wedlock birth rates, fatherless boys going from a poorly parented single parent home through the pipeline into prison, and of course...the street/gang life with endless trouble and conflicts with law enforcement, not to mention intraracial violence. 
So if I'm to understand you correctly, so-called "black culture" as you would describe it is:

Generational Poverty
Victimhood Mentality
Regurgitating false narratives pedaled by "black" & "white" liberal leaders (e.g. lies, divisive racist rhetoric toward cops, "whites" and other "races." )
72% out-of-wedlock birth rates
Fatherless boys who are poorly parented by prisoners, who presumably have their child's mother serve as proxy
Street/Gang life
Interracial Violence.

And you believe that this is all attributable and exclusive to those whom the government designates as "black"?

You cannot claim I am regurgitating anything & not understanding it without proving it. Whining about it isn't proof. 
I did not claim it; I proposed it as a possibility. Of course, you can lay all questions to rest by simply doing what I assume one who has at least a primary school reading level can do.

JFC, you and that other clown do nothing but bitch wine and moan about my position and have yet to even address the underlining argument.
Define bitch, "wine" and moan, because I don't think you know their meanings.

Until either of you do, I will not respond any further.
That is your prerogative.

This Dunning Kruger display of a bitch fest is over with. 
You accuse me with "bitchiness," yet you refuse to explain your own arguments? I'd have more respect for your position if you proverbially said it with your chest, rather than disguise platitudes as "fact."



Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Dr.Franklin
The historical consensus.
What consensus? (Note: ad numerum arguments should be avoided.)

No, rather you educate ME. Because every single historian in existence disagrees with you
Disagrees with what?  "Blacks were nowhere in Ancient Sumeria" is your argument, not mine. Support your assertion. How would you explain and support your argument to someone who knows nothing about Sumerian history?

Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@TWS1405
I wager one or both of you have not seen either Uncle Tom or Uncle Tom II. 

The following two videos show/disclose exactly what I have been conveying herein and then some. 



Doubt either of you will watch them, denialists rarely do. 
I have no interest in what someone else has said. I'm particularly interested in what you have to say, what you can argue, and your understanding of the subject you instigated. You can oblige me, or not. The choice is yours.

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,303
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
historically, the poor are more likely to both commit and be victims of "violent crime"
How does economic status dictate moral content and responsibility?
traditionally, a "crime of desperation" is thought of differently than a "crime of greed" or a "crime of hate"
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
traditionally, a "crime of desperation" is thought of differently than a "crime of greed" or a "crime of hate"
A crime, nonetheless. Would solving poverty solve crime among the poor, assuming that the crime which affects them most are crimes of desperation?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,303
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Does Social Welfare Reduce Crime?

Using cross sectional data, DeFranzo (1996, 1997) and Hannon and DeFranzo (1998a, 1998) demonstrate that welfare payments reduce major crimes. It appears that frequent payments of a sufficient size would reduce crime levels and smooth the process. [**]
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Athias
-->@TWS1405
The obvious point is that I am focusing in on criminological data that specifically involved the black demographic of the population and no other specific demographics as the primary subject matter of the discussion.
That is not "a point." That's simply what you're doing. If so-called "race" does not qualify criminality, then why does your "focus" lie on racial distinction?

Point: an individual detail; a distinguishing detail; the most important essential in a discussion or matter. 

Yes, it is "a point."

Race does not qualify criminality, as all human beings from all backgrounds are capable of criminality. Criminality is not exclusive to one race. Therefore, race does not qualify criminality. 

Criminological data is inherently broken down by sex/gender, class and racial categories. And since race does not qualify criminality, it is merely a distinction (the quality of state of being distinguishable) that separates one race from other races that are part and parcel to the racial category within criminological data.


Again, the distinction is based on the demographics and NOT qualifications. 
Again, no qualifications but rather demography. Big difference. 
Why are you lying? If you were simply making an argument of demography then you could've not only omitted your alleged victimization by alleged liberal PC tyrants,  but also chosen a less charged--or a more neutral--title. You instigated a politicized discussion on the subject of so-called, "black criminality." You continue to argue that you aren't making any racial qualifications, yet submit statements like, "clearly demonstrate [so-called] black males are far more of a 'problem for America' than what the left claims" which is value-based, not statistical.

Believe me, I couldn't possibly concern myself less with your political leanings, your views of ethnicity and so-called, "race." But your attempts to insult everyone's intelligence with nothing more than "I'm just mentioning 'black criminality' for the sake of it; not that I'm arguing that 'black' qualifies the criminality that I'm mentioning on whim" is nothing more than some Betty Crocker campaign to patholigize the so-called "black" demographic.
I am not lying. Clearly you do not understand the meaning of distinction vs qualification

My statement that criminological data clearly showing a small % of black males are far more of a problem for America than the left claims is statistically accurate. And I am not the only one asserting the same position.





Yes, it is very analogous.
Define analogous. Because I don't think you know its meaning.
I know its meaning, you obviously do not. And it is very condescending for you to even ask this, repeatedly for different terms throughout your retort. 


A physical search is meaningless unless it is narrowed down more by demography of racial background. 
Not analogous. Physical searches require physical content--i.e. physical descriptions. Criminality is premised on legality and ethics. Neither require physical description.
Wrong. Putting an APB out on merely height, weight, hair color and clothing are meaningless without a racial distinction. Otherwise, police would be looking for any male or female fitting the vague description, which is tantamount to looking for a needle in a haystack. 


Quoting out of context leaves such retorts like this 100% vague and meaningless. 
No one is quoting you out of context. The utility in logging written/typed statements is that one could always go back and look.
Yeah, you did in the previous response. You did not link to the specific comment for I or anyone else to refer to. No one wants to go back and search through hundreds of comments just to find mine in which you are replying to. Next time link to it, otherwise you ARE quoting out of context. 


There is no qualification, it is fact based on the data that the demographic committing the crimes cited are distinctly categorized by black (vs white or Hispanic). 
If there's no qualification, then why ARE YOU comparing variance in crimes committed by so-called "race," e.g. ("Black" vs. "White" or "Hispanic")? What information can this comparison possibly provide other than qualifications based on racial distinction?

Race does not qualify criminality, as all human beings from all backgrounds are capable of criminality. Criminality is not exclusive to one race. Therefore, race does not qualify criminality. 

Criminological data is inherently broken down by sex/gender, class and racial categories. And since race does not qualify criminality, it is merely a distinction (the quality of state of being distinguishable) that separates one race from other races that are part and parcel to the racial category within criminology. 


Yes, it is. Denialist. 
What am I denying, other than that you're not arguing racial qualifications?

Quoting out of context leaving vague retorts without linking to the specific comment you are replying to. 

Distinction does not equal qualification. 
Non sequitur. No one has argued that the distinction in and of itself is a qualification. One is arguing that references to these distinctions in order to make value-based arguments (i.e. The data across all interrelated relative areas, clearly demonstrate [so-called] black males are far more of a 'problem for America' than what the left claims.) is a qualification.
You do not know what the term qualification means, nor non sequitur either, obviously. 


Stop making semantics arguments. It's not only disingenuous, but also ignorant. 
Define semantics, disingenuous, and ignorant, because I don't think you know their meanings.
Another example of your sanctimonious condescension. I know perfectly well what they mean. Do you?? 


If you are so full of contention, then prove me wrong
It's not incumbent upon me to "prove you wrong"; it's incumbent upon you to prove your arguments, "right."

I've already proven my arguments. So yes, if you claim I am wrong on any level or by any measure, then it is incumbent upon you to prove me wrong. That is the purpose of debate/discussion. 


prove the "factually accurate" data wrong
Non sequitur. My contention is not against your so-called, "data."

That's because you know the data proves my argument. You just do not like the wording of my argument. 


Stop whining about it, and just prove it.
Define whining. Because, I don't think you know its meaning.
Condescension, again. 


As I have said repeatedly, they deny the statistics as being attributable the small segment of black males committing the violent person crimes and not my conclusions.
I'm not going to pretend to have a modicum of authority as to what this nebulous, "they," think.

"they" have already been identified, and their responses are obvious. Just search "BLM" and "white guilt liberal" and you will get plenty of hits that demonstrate how "they" think. 


My stance is far better.
No it's not.

Yes, it is. 

Claiming otherwise without proving it speaks volumes. 
How convenient.
*facepalm* 

My argument functions on my understanding of their definitions and explanations.
Convey this alleged understanding by providing your own description. What is, again, so-called, "Black Culture"?
Asked and answered, ad nauseum. 


It's tantamount to looking up the term in the damn dictionary. 
All the more reason.
*yawn*


I am not going to rephrase what they say/said about the part of black culture that is harming that specific segment of the black community that finds itself in generational poverty, suffering from the victimhood mentality, parroting what black & white guilt liberal so-called leaders spoon feed them (e.g. lies, divisive racist rhetoric towards cops, whites and other races & nationalities), 72% out of wedlock birth rates, fatherless boys going from a poorly parented single parent home through the pipeline into prison, and of course...the street/gang life with endless trouble and conflicts with law enforcement, not to mention intraracial violence. 
So if I'm to understand you correctly, so-called "black culture" as you would describe it is:

Generational Poverty
Victimhood Mentality
Regurgitating false narratives pedaled by "black" & "white" liberal leaders (e.g. lies, divisive racist rhetoric toward cops, "whites" and other "races." )
72% out-of-wedlock birth rates
Fatherless boys who are poorly parented by prisoners, who presumably have their child's mother serve as proxy
Street/Gang life
Interracial Violence.

And you believe that this is all attributable and exclusive to those whom the government designates as "black"?
Intraracial, NOT interracial. 

And I have said repeatedly it is attributable to a segment of the black community, not all black Americans. 


You cannot claim I am regurgitating anything & not understanding it without proving it. Whining about it isn't proof. 
I did not claim it; I proposed it as a possibility. Of course, you can lay all questions to rest by simply doing what I assume one who has at least a primary school reading level can do.

Proposing = claiming. It is an assertion open to challenge. 


JFC, you and that other clown do nothing but bitch wine and moan about my position and have yet to even address the underlining argument.
Define bitch, "wine" and moan, because I don't think you know their meanings.
More condescension. *yawn* 


This Dunning Kruger display of a bitch fest is over with. 
You accuse me with "bitchiness," yet you refuse to explain your own arguments? I'd have more respect for your position if you proverbially said it with your chest, rather than disguise platitudes as "fact."
My argument(s) have been explained and are crystal clear. 
A small % of black males are committing more violent person crimes than any other racial category. Yet the left denies this fact and claims white males are the greatest danger, asserting that they, white males, are the domestic terrorists everyone need fear. This is a lie. The facts do not support their narrative. Thus they deny any fact-based truth that contradicts their unsubstantiated narrative. 


I wager one or both of you have not seen either Uncle Tom or Uncle Tom II. 

The following two videos show/disclose exactly what I have been conveying herein and then some. 



Doubt either of you will watch them, denialists rarely do. 
I have no interest in what someone else has said. I'm particularly interested in what you have to say, what you can argue, and your understanding of the subject you instigated. You can oblige me, or not. The choice is yours.
What they say, as I clearly stated is EXACTLY what I have stated herein, and more that augments the same argument that I have given and the reasonings, therefore. 





Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
Does Social Welfare Reduce Crime?

Using cross sectional data, DeFranzo (1996, 1997) and Hannon and DeFranzo (1998a, 1998) demonstrate that welfare payments reduce major crimes. It appears that frequent payments of a sufficient size would reduce crime levels and smooth the process. [**]
Do social welfare transfers mitigate poverty? Does it serve your point if those who receive social welfare are still poor?
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@TWS1405
Point: an individual detail; a distinguishing detail; the most important essential in a discussion or matter. 
Let's focus on the last part. Why have you chosen to focus on racial distinction if soc-called race does not qualify criminality?

I am not lying. Clearly you do not understand the meaning of distinction vs qualification
Then why do your arguments frequently elide elaborating on your focus on racial distinction if in fact you're arguing no qualification?

My statement that criminological data clearly showing a small % of black males are far more of a problem for America than the left claims is statistically accurate.
No, statistics rationalizes into proportion captures of incidental data. The suggestion that any demographic is "far more of a problem" is a value statement, statistics notwithstanding. So I ask again: are you getting push-back because the statistics are being denied, or are you getting push-back because of the value-statements you infer from them?

Again, my contention is NOT against your alleged statistics.

I know its meaning, you obviously do not.
Sure.

And it is very condescending for you to even ask this, repeatedly for different terms throughout your retort. 
You're offended by my "condescending" tone? Didn't you know that "whiny, bitchy, clowns" can be condescending? I'm not to going concern myself with maintaining a level of respect with a member who not only does not reciprocate, but also initiates insults.

Wrong. Putting an APB out on merely height, weight, hair color and clothing are meaningless without a racial distinction. Otherwise, police would be looking for any male or female fitting the vague description, which is tantamount to looking for a needle in a haystack. 
What are you arguing against? We are arguing the subject of an analogous comparison between an APB search and the necessity of creating racial distinctions when analyzing criminality. Again, if racial distinction doesn't qualify criminality, then WHAT. IS. YOUR. POINT? WHY. ARE. YOU. FOCUSING. ON. RACIAL. DISTINCTION?

Yeah, you did in the previous response. You did not link to the specific comment for I or anyone else to refer to.

So?

No one wants to go back and search through hundreds of comments just to find mine in which you are replying to.
And why should I concern myself with this?

Next time link to it
No.

otherwise you ARE quoting out of context. 
Mitigating your laziness is not the same as quoting "in context."

Race does not qualify criminality, as all human beings from all backgrounds are capable of criminality. Criminality is not exclusive to one race. Therefore, race does not qualify criminality. 
I agree. So WHY. HAVE. YOU. DECIDED. TO. FOCUS. ON. RACIAL. DISTINCTION? It's a rather simple question you have yet to answer.

Quoting out of context leaving vague retorts without linking to the specific comment you are replying to. 
In other words, you're expecting me to mitigate laziness.

You do not know what the term qualification means, nor non sequitur either, obviously. 
Sure.

Another example of your sanctimonious condescension. I know perfectly well what they mean. Do you?? 
Yes. But your sensitivity is none of my concern.

I've already proven my arguments.
Not even a little bit.

So yes, if you claim I am wrong on any level or by any measure, then it is incumbent upon you to prove me wrong.
Quote me.

That's because you know the data proves my argument.
No it doesn't. Your argument is essentially a value statement. The data can provide information that helps contextualize said value statement. But then you'd be arguing qualifications based on the distinctions you apply, which is exactly what you claim you are not doing.

You just do not like the wording of my argument. 
My "liking" is of no consequence. I'm identifying your tactic in this discussion, which yes, includes the language you use.

Asked and answered, ad nauseum. 
Answered? I've asked you to give me your own description and you haven't. What have you answered?

Intraracial, NOT interracial. 
I stand corrected. "Intraracial."

And I have said repeatedly it is attributable to a segment of the black community, not all black Americans. 
Then what term do you use to identify the culture engaged by so-called "Black" Americans who aren't involved in:

Generational Poverty
Victimhood Mentality
Regurgitating false narratives pedaled by "black" & "white" liberal leaders (e.g. lies, divisive racist rhetoric toward cops, "whites" and other "races." )
72% out-of-wedlock birth rates
Fatherless boys who are poorly parented by prisoners, who presumably have their child's mother serve as proxy
Street/Gang life
Intraracial Violence.
?

Proposing = claiming
Sure.

My argument(s) have been explained and are crystal clear. 
A small % of black males are committing more violent person crimes than any other racial category. Yet the left denies this fact and claims white males are the greatest danger, asserting that they, white males, are the domestic terrorists everyone need fear. This is a lie. The facts do not support their narrative. Thus they deny any fact-based truth that contradicts their unsubstantiated narrative. 
What does so-called, "white" males NOT being the greatest danger, or domestic terrorists have to do with a statistic which alleges that a small percent of so-called "black" males are committing more violent person crimes than any other demographic along the lines of "racial" distinction? Can you not simply negate the proposition--i.e. white males are the greatest danger, and domestic terrorists everyone need fear--WITHOUT parsing and selecting for racial distinction?

Case in point: if, for example, I'm trying to rebut or refute the proposition "white men are the worst lovers," what utility does it serve the negation of this proposition if I were to allude to Japanese men being the worst lovers if not to sustain the qualification of love making using racial distinctions?

Your argument is tantamount to "White men aren't the greatest danger; Black men are. And the statistics back me up." And your reference to "the facts" aren't fooling anyone, especially when a simple negation would have sufficed. Instead, you sought to extend a politicized discussion over so-called, "racial" tribalism.

What they say, as I clearly stated is EXACTLY what I have stated herein, and more that augments the same argument that I have given and the reasonings, therefore. 
Incomprehensible.
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Athias

Added08.01.22 06:48PM
-->@TWS1405
Point: an individual detail; a distinguishing detail; the most important essential in a discussion or matter. 
Let's focus on the last part. Why have you chosen to focus on racial distinction if soc-called race does not qualify criminality?

Are you being obtuse on purpose or are you really that dense!?! 

Down below you agreed race is not a qualifier of criminality precisely because all races commit crimes. It is not isolated to any one race. 
Therefore, the distinction is clear when it comes to collecting criminological data and breaking down arrests and offenses committed by race (Table 43A, FBI UCR data)


I am not lying. Clearly you do not understand the meaning of distinction vs qualification
Then why do your arguments frequently elide elaborating on your focus on racial distinction if in fact you're arguing no qualification?

Huh? You're babbling nonsense here. A circular argument, at best. Nonsense at worst. 

My statement that criminological data clearly showing a small % of black males are far more of a problem for America than the left claims is statistically accurate.
No, statistics rationalizes into proportion captures of incidental data. The suggestion that any demographic is "far more of a problem" is a value statement, statistics notwithstanding. So I ask again: are you getting push-back because the statistics are being denied, or are you getting push-back because of the value-statements you infer from them?


It is not a value statement when the data is crystal clear; a small % of black males ARE committing over 50% of the ENTIRE nation's murders and non-negligent manslaughters; as well as being overrepresented in other violent person crimes (e.g., robberies, rape, etc.). Understanding the proportionality of the statistical data between blacks and the other races categorized within the relevant criminological data demonstrates that those small % of blacks are more of a problem than any other race. Get rid of that small % and the entire nations murder and non-negligent manslaughter rate is immediately cut in half, despite there being more whites and Hispanics than there are blacks. 


Then what the hell is your freaking problem. How I address those statistics? Grow up. Truth may hurt but it doesn't change the fact truth is still truth, no matter how it is conveyed.


And it is very condescending for you to even ask this, repeatedly for different terms throughout your retort. 
You're offended by my "condescending" tone? Didn't you know that "whiny, bitchy, clowns" can be condescending? I'm not to going concern myself with maintaining a level of respect with a member who not only does not reciprocate, but also initiates insults.


You reap what you sow. Tit for tat. 

Wrong. Putting an APB out on merely height, weight, hair color and clothing are meaningless without a racial distinction. Otherwise, police would be looking for any male or female fitting the vague description, which is tantamount to looking for a needle in a haystack. 
What are you arguing against? We are arguing the subject of an analogous comparison between an APB search and the necessity of creating racial distinctions when analyzing criminality. Again, if racial distinction doesn't qualify criminality, then WHAT. IS. YOUR. POINT? WHY. ARE. YOU. FOCUSING. ON. RACIAL. DISTINCTION?

JFC! You are dense. 
The APB analogy was to illustrate the importance of addressing the racial distinction in order to acknowledge exactly who (by race/ethnicity) has committed the crime. It narrows down the data to a specific subset of the population, vs the proverbial needle in the haystack. 


No one wants to go back and search through hundreds of comments just to find mine in which you are replying to.
And why should I concern myself with this?

Because you're quoting out of context when you leave out the other relevant details that proceeded the tiny, cherry-picked portion you're replying to. 

Next time link to it
No.

Then I will continue to call you out for quoting out of context. 

otherwise you ARE quoting out of context. 
Mitigating your laziness is not the same as quoting "in context."


Huh? *sigh* It is to YOU who is being lazy cause you refuse to cut-n-paste the full context of the statement(s). 


Race does not qualify criminality, as all human beings from all backgrounds are capable of criminality. Criminality is not exclusive to one race. Therefore, race does not qualify criminality. 
I agree. So WHY. HAVE. YOU. DECIDED. TO. FOCUS. ON. RACIAL. DISTINCTION? It's a rather simple question you have yet to answer.

I have answered it, numerous times, you're just too dense to grasp it. 
 
As I said at the beginning of this response, criminological data has specific categories in which it collects data by distinctive racial (and gender, class) categories for specific crimes. See the link for Table 43 that was provided, if you STILL do not get it. 

Quoting out of context leaving vague retorts without linking to the specific comment you are replying to. 
In other words, you're expecting me to mitigate laziness.


It is to YOU who is being lazy. If you cannot keep the conversation within its proper context, that is on YOU! This is not just a discussion between you and I, others are reading; and keeping it in context benefits the other readers (as well as either one of us). Your failure, not mine. 

You do not know what the term qualification means, nor non sequitur either, obviously. 
Sure.
Truth. 


Another example of your sanctimonious condescension. I know perfectly well what they mean. Do you?? 
Yes. But your sensitivity is none of my concern.


I am not being sensitive. I could care less how you behave, but I will throw that behavior back in your face to make a point. 

I've already proven my arguments.
Not even a little bit.

I have. You have not proven otherwise. 


That's because you know the data proves my argument.
No it doesn't. Your argument is essentially a value statement. The data can provide information that helps contextualize said value statement. But then you'd be arguing qualifications based on the distinctions you apply, which is exactly what you claim you are not doing.

Yes, it does. The data supports the proffered position. End of story. 


You just do not like the wording of my argument. 
My "liking" is of no consequence. I'm identifying your tactic in this discussion, which yes, includes the language you use.
*YAWN*


Asked and answered, ad nauseum. 
Answered? I've asked you to give me your own description and you haven't. What have you answered?

Another statement taken out of context. 



And I have said repeatedly it is attributable to a segment of the black community, not all black Americans. 
Then what term do you use to identify the culture engaged by so-called "Black" Americans who aren't involved in:



My argument(s) have been explained and are crystal clear. 
A small % of black males are committing more violent person crimes than any other racial category. Yet the left denies this fact and claims white males are the greatest danger, asserting that they, white males, are the domestic terrorists everyone need fear. This is a lie. The facts do not support their narrative. Thus they deny any fact-based truth that contradicts their unsubstantiated narrative. 
What does so-called, "white" males NOT being the greatest danger, or domestic terrorists have to do with a statistic which alleges that a small percent of so-called "black" males are committing more violent person crimes than any other demographic along the lines of "racial" distinction? Can you not simply negate the proposition--i.e. white males are the greatest danger, and domestic terrorists everyone need fear--WITHOUT parsing and selecting for racial distinction?

Case in point: if, for example, I'm trying to rebut or refute the proposition "white men are the worst lovers," what utility does it serve the negation of this proposition if I were to allude to Japanese men being the worst lovers if not to sustain the qualification of love making using racial distinctions?

Your argument is tantamount to "White men aren't the greatest danger; Black men are. And the statistics back me up." And your reference to "the facts" aren't fooling anyone, especially when a simple negation would have sufficed. Instead, you sought to extend a politicized discussion over so-called, "racial" tribalism.

FFS! I have repeatedly said that the left engages is false rhetoric asserting that white cis males are the greatest danger to American life, but as I have stated and demonstrated throughout that it is a small % of black males who are the greater threat to Americans. A fact that destroys their narrative. It isn't fucking rocket science, Athias.  How hard is it for you to comprehend that fact!!

The rest of your drivel is fallacious circular argumentation. 

What they say, as I clearly stated is EXACTLY what I have stated herein, and more that augments the same argument that I have given and the reasonings, therefore. 
Incomprehensible.


When you quote out of context, maybe. Had you included the full context, nope. Fulling comprehensible. 
You're just a cherry-picker.