A small % of black men ARE the most VIOLENT in American society

Author: TWS1405
black privilege
intraracial violence
black on white violence
black violence

Posts

Total: 133
#61
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
-->
@Ramshutu
Some extremist left-wing people I've met irl or debated on other websites.
Have a link, or a example?

Are you really asking dude for a citation on the fact he said idiots exist that believe stupid things?

I think you can give him that point. I'm sure if he looked hard enough he would eventually be able to cite some idiot who believes exactly what he said some people believe. 

Do you really want him to search 8 hours for that citation so you can merely respond "well that guy is an idiot and doesn't represent the opinion of any thinking person". 

I don't know why people get hung up on these types of points. 
#62
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
-->
@Ramshutu
Can you share one?
Before this he mention blacks being ostracized for stating that truth.

I can help maybe not that it matters. Thomas Sowell is actually referred to as an uncle Tom for bringing up not only the differences in data but pointing out  why there are differences like he did in his book "black rednecks and white liberals"

The funny thing is, nobody says he is wrong or tries to debate him, they just call him an Uncle Tom for pointing out the root causes of the problems. 

I can tell you why this happens, but it gets deep.

Part of the issue is that the goal of socialists is in erasing differences in class. The socialists I am referring to anyway, and they can't use blacks as cannon fodder if they focus on the actual problems and fix them of the black community. 

Socialists need identity politics to win. They are absolutely correct. They can't get their policies taken seriously if they act in a pragmatic way to solve problems. 

You might say, well most Democrats aren't socialists or Marxists. To that, I would say you are correct. What you don't understand maybe, is that most of the intelligentsia who does a lot to control public thinking on issues, are Marxist socialists
#63
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Are you really asking dude for a citation on the fact he said idiots exist that believe stupid things?

I think you can give him that point. I'm sure if he looked hard enough he would eventually be able to cite some idiot who believes exactly what he said some people believe. 

Do you really want him to search 8 hours for that citation so you can merely respond "well that guy is an idiot and doesn't represent the opinion of any thinking person". 

I don't know why people get hung up on these types of points. 
It’s a pretty central point his blog post, other posts, and as he suggests here that “the left” rejects this specific data. If he has to spend 8 hours searching, and is only able to find some idiot no one has heard of - that would seem to refute the claim. No?

If he can’t show “the left” is rejecting this data - he shouldn’t be making the claim. Right?

I agree, I’m sure one can find an idiot who believes all sorts of nonsense on a particular piece if data on the right  - but I couldn’t use that to draw broad political conclusion about the right and say ”the right believes”

Now; one could presume that the left accepts the data, but rejects various “conservative” conclusions being drawn from it on cause, blame or approach - and ostracize more conservative viewpoints when they draw blame or oppose popular policy or perspectives on race - but that’s not the same thing at all.

The OP Suggesting the data is the true point of contention, or that people are ostracized for bringing up the data - but it’s not clear the data was never at issue. And this is my point - if the left doesn’t actually reject the data - then the purpose of this entire post is a strawman; that’s not a minor triviality as you and others appear to suggest


#64
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
-->
@Ramshutu
I I agree with most of what you said, but you stated not a single person on the left believes what he said they do, when intuitively we know that if you proclaimed these facts in public or at work without adding anything, just a flat unbiased statement of these facts, you'd be fired for racism. 

That to me sounds like, not only are the people firing you, in denial about the stated facts, but also think it's racist to think these facts derived from DOJ stats are real. 

If you only heard somebody state those facts with no context, what would be the first thoughts that pop into your mind. I am on the far right ideologically, and I am willing to say I am biased enough that anyone stating the fact with no context would be seen as racist to me. 

If this is the case than we have to admit a lot of people are uncomfortable with these facts. 
#65
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,945
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
A small percentage of every race that think like  Cro-Magnon dick wads are the most violent. It has never been about race. Its about the mind and what it is either taught or indoctrinated to believe. It is these people that make the whole world suck for everyone else. Those minds that are taught critical thinking skills and to think for themselves  are generally never a problem nor a burden on society. Just my opinion based on 58 years of living.
#66
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,743
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
Blacks are more violent.

Years of slavery has kept the blacks in good shape and very angry.
Embracing Christianity has given blacks the same justification by fate to do unto others that allowed whites to enslave them.

But wait till a higher percentage of blacks join in. Africans are reaching a population of over a billion and majority are Christians.
#67
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
I I agree with most of what you said, but you stated not a single person on the left believes what he said they do.

I’m sure there are some; perhaps not many. It’s certainly not any sort of major theme or trend on the broader left.

when intuitively we know that if you proclaimed these facts in public or at work without adding anything, just a flat unbiased statement of these facts, you'd be fired for racism. 

That to me sounds like, not only are the people firing you, in denial about the stated facts, but also think it's racist to think these facts derived from DOJ stats are real. 

If you only heard somebody state those facts with no context, what would be the first thoughts that pop into your mind. I am on the far right ideologically, and I am willing to say I am biased enough that anyone stating the fact with no context would be seen as racist to me. 

If this is the case than we have to admit a lot of people are uncomfortable with these facts. 
What you’re talking about isn’t denial of the facts, or even any inherent discomfort about the facts per-se (as in discomfort that the facts are as they).

The issue is much more related to the fact that the nature of the topic, and the language you can use to express it makes it difficult to express the fact without implying value or without implying some level stereotype. If you avoid doing that - then there would be much less of an issue.

If you can express the same thing in a different way and no one is bothered - then it’s not the facts being cited that’s the issue.

As I said in my first reply; the behaviour, tone, and statements all play a part in determining what another human says; when talking about negative things that imply negative social value about a group of people; making no effort to clarify that you’re not implying negative social value to the group - people are going to take it in that way: this isn’t a left thing or a racism thing; this a pretty much anyone and anything thing.

I mean; go up to a team of rugby players and state - A flat unbiased statement of truth - with anything added - that statistically speaking,  one in every ten men is homosexual. They may be likely to take issue with it, not because they deny the existence of prevalence of gay people - but how you saying it came across in context.





#68
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
-->
@Ramshutu
I mean; go up to a team of rugby players and state - A flat unbiased statement of truth - with anything added - that statistically speaking,  one in every ten men is homosexual. They may be likely to take issue with it, not because they deny the existence of prevalence of gay people - but how you saying it came across in context.
The needing of context is stupid and actually gets in the way of analyzing the facts. 

I also take issue with you thinking body language and tone matter, which is why in real life I try to remove all body language and tone in communication, so people can just solely rely on the dry facts presented. Nobody should be looking at tone or body language at all. 


#69
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Wylted
The needing of context is stupid and actually gets in the way of analyzing the facts. 
The need for understanding tone, context and language is critical in pretty much any human interaction where meaning is conveyed.

That you personally think needing context is stupid does not stop the rugby players taking issue with what you said.

Likewise, if the context of the discussion is the cold hard analysis of facts - then you’ll probably find a much more forgiving audience than at, say. a communal water cooler where people are talking about better call Saul ; and you walk up and state that blacks commit more crime by proportion unsolicited.

I also take issue with you thinking body language and tone matter, which is why in real life I try to remove all body language and tone in communication, so people can just solely rely on the dry facts presented. Nobody should be looking at tone or body language at all. 
What you feel should be the case is largely irrelevant to what is the case; humans use tone, body language, and language used to interpret meaning and gauge intent. That’s how we work.

It seems with this reply that your issue is not about the left ignoring data - but that you take issue with how human interaction typically works. 


#70
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,139
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Ramshutu
Again - just claims that BLM is too focused on police - no specific examples of anyone denying the numbers.
The BLM movement’s central narrative— that law enforcement poses the greatest threat to black lives— essentially denies the violent crime stats in black communities.

#71
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@cristo71
The BLM movement’s central narrative— that law enforcement poses the greatest threat to black lives— essentially denies the violent crime stats in black communities.
Is that really their central narrative? or is that what people pretend their central narrative is so that their objections or issues can be dismissed?

One can believe that the state is oppressing black people, and that police and state violence is a critical issue for black communities - whilst not denying the underlying crime statistics. The same way you can have organizations that promote awareness of breast cancer - without necessarily thinking that breast cancer is the biggest single health issue people face.
#72
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,139
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Ramshutu
If you want someone to link you to the article “Violent Crime Statistics Broken Down By Race Are False,” you are correct:  there is no such declaration— just as you won’t find someone denying that the climate is changing (ie “I don’t deny the climate is changing; it has been, is, and always will be changing…”). The level of vocal denial you need to see to be satisfied you might be incorrect is implausibly high.

BLM essentially denies the crime stats by starting the “defund the police” movement. To lessen police presence is to deny that crime is a problem, by deeds if not by exact words.
#73
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,415
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@sadolite
Another gem.
#74
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@cristo71
If you want someone to link you to the article “Violent Crime Statistics Broken Down By Race Are False,” you are correct:  there is no such declaration— just as you won’t find someone denying that the climate is changing (ie “I don’t deny the climate is changing; it has been, is, and always will be changing…”). The level of vocal denial you need to see to be satisfied you might be incorrect is implausibly high.
This is a perfect example, right here: Take climate change denial.

If I started citing articles showing the world was warming, that carbon dioxide was rising, and height measurements from tidal gauges and then claimed that the right denies this evidence - that would be a straw man.

Finding someone who denies the climate is changing would be almost impossible because no one really denies the climate is changing. This is really my point.  The issue was never about the climate data, but other areas or aspects - and simple regurgitating temperature statistics doesn’t cut to the actual disagreement.

BLM essentially denies the crime stats by starting the “defund the police” movement. To lessen police presence is to deny that crime is a problem, by deeds if not by exact words.
That the only reason why someone would lesson police presence would be if crime was low: is assuming your own conclusion.

If, for example, BLM wanted to defund the police because they’re hindering more than they’re helping with that crime rate, and that they want to approach the problem differently - that still allows them to support defunding the police without ignoring the data. 

There’s all manner of motivations that are not predicated on such denial; and simply assuming the motivation that implies denial out of all the possibilities is called “begging the question”.


#75
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,139
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Ramshutu
If I started citing articles showing the world was warming, that carbon dioxide was rising, and height measurements from tidal gauges and then claimed that the right denies this evidence - that would be a straw man.
Not to get too far off on a tangent, but I think climate data is misinterpreted, minimized, decontextualized, etc. routinely by pundits… so the denial is there. Again, it just isn’t the outright, blatant, flat earth style denial that you seek with this crime data.

That the only reason why someone would lesson police presence would be if crime was low: is assuming your own conclusion.
Not sure what you’re saying here. If you’re saying that it is a fallacy to cut the police over low crime if the real reason for the low crime is the current size of the police force, then I agree… yet I don’t see how this counters what I am saying.

If, for example, BLM wanted to defund the police because they’re hindering more than they’re helping with that crime rate, and that they want to approach the problem differently - that still allows them to support defunding the police without ignoring the data.
Where’s the data showing that police are a net hindrance on decreasing crime? If you are posing this scenario as a hypothetical (“if”), then it is a meaningless one as it assumes an implausible premise regarding the police and crime rates.

There’s all manner of motivations that are not predicated on such denial; and simply assuming the motivation that implies denial out of all the possibilities is called “begging the question”.
I never said that defunding the police is “predicated on denying crime stats.” What I am saying is that cutting already strained police ranks— for whatever reason OTHER than the current size of police = a net increase in crime (!)— is essentially to deny/ignore/avoid crime statistics.
#76
Avery
Avery's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 323
1
2
5
Avery's avatar
Avery
1
2
5
-->
@sadolite
It has never been about race.
Do you think every race has precisely the same capacity for violence, despite evolving in completely different parts of the world and having different genes?
Topic's author
#77
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
BLM and the false narratives:

Step 1: Spread out-of-context video clip of Black man subdued or shot by white cops across national media airwaves and social media platforms.
Step 2: Riot.

Step 3: Accuse law enforcement and America of "systemic racism," decry police brutality and demand "justice" for fill-in-the-blank "victim."
Step 4: Riot.
Step 5. Enter Al Sharpton, Benjamin Crump, Black Lives Matter chief propagandist Shaun King, and the rest of the racial hoax crime brigade.
Step 6: Persecute and prosecute involved police officers.

Step 7: Burn, loot and maraud nationwide.
Step 8: Demand more funding for "restorative justice," "alternative" policing, sensitivity training and "anti-racism" programs.
Step 9: Bury all evidence of justified police action while screaming, "Racism!" ever louder.
Step 10: Lie in wait for the next opportunity to return to Step 1.

"By protesting the police killing of a man who was allegedly attempting to murder others, BLM activists revealed their true colors. They believe black men should be able to commit heinous crimes without facing the inevitable consequences." - BLM Accidentally Makes Fortune for Woman Who Called Them Out After America Watches Video, Starts Donating Money (westernjournal.com)

"A former data analyst for Thomson Reuters asserts that he was fired because he crunched and shared numbers that revealed the Black Lives Matter narrative about police shootings was wrong, if not outright false." - Former Thomson Reuters Analyst Claims He Was Fired For Disproving BLM Narrative About Cops (tampafp.com)

"Civil rights attorney Leo Terrell joins "Life, Liberty & Levin" on Sunday night where he addresses his issues with the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, saying the organization's motivation is money and calling them "profiteers." - Leo Terrell: Black Lives Matter is 'profiting' on a 'false narrative' | Fox News

"Yet the Black Lives Matter movement is based on a lie. The idea that the United States is experiencing an epidemic of racially driven police shootings is false — and dangerously so." - The lies told by the Black Lives Matter movement (nypost.com)

"On the other hand, the basic premise of Black Lives Matter—that racist cops are killing unarmed black people—is false. There was a time when I believed it...But I no longer believe that the cops disproportionately kill unarmed black Americans." - Stories and Data (city-journal.org)
#78
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@cristo71
Not to get too far off on a tangent, but I think climate data is misinterpreted, minimized, decontextualized, etc. routinely by pundits… so the denial is there. Again, it just isn’t the outright, blatant, flat earth style denial that you seek with this crime data.
And wouldn’t be the outright flat earth style denial the OP suggested… You’re basically agreeing with me, that the type of denial the OP suggests doesn’t really exist

Not sure what you’re saying here. If you’re saying that it is a fallacy to cut the police over low crime if the real reason for the low crime is the current size of the police force, then I agree… yet I don’t see how this counters what I am saying.
I’m saying that there are a whole number of reasons for which “defunding the police” could be the suggested approach - that does need to deny facts; you have assumed out of whole clothe that the motivation is because BLM assume that there is low crime.

Or in other words your arguments requires you to assume BLM is denying the numbers - eg: your argument assumes it’s own conclusion.

Where’s the data showing that police are a net hindrance on decreasing crime? If you are posing this scenario as a hypothetical (“if”), then it is a meaningless one as it assumes an implausible premise regarding the police and crime rates.
You appear to be thinking I’m determining the accuracy. I am suggesting an alternative motivation that doesn’t assume BLM are ignoring data. It may assume something else: that BLM believe that police as they are currently formed are a net hinderance to the crime rate in their neighbourhood. That doesn’t appear any more implausible assumption about what they believe than yours. At best you believe they’re denying one set of data, and this example the deny another - not wholly unreasonable.

The main issue is, unless you can plausibly reason why the only reasonable conclusion for BLM to defund the police is denial - this is mere question begging.

I never said that defunding the police is “predicated on denying crime stats.” What I am saying is that cutting already strained police ranks— for whatever reason OTHER than the current size of police = a net increase in crime (!)— is essentially to deny/ignore/avoid crime statistics
I suggested - and I think fairly - that you’re argument assumes that if BLM did not deny it the crime stats - they wouldn’t call for defunding the police - because you’re using the call to defund the police as evidence of denial. If that’s not the case, then you contradict your own conclusion. Otherwise, it’s fair to characterize it as defunding the police being predicated on denial of stats. Not wholly predicated; but predicated to the degree that it wouldn’t happen without it.





#79
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,139
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Ramshutu
And wouldn’t be the outright flat earth style denial the OP suggested… You’re basically agreeing with me, that the type of denial the OP suggests doesn’t really exist
I agree that the explicit denial claimed by the OP doesn’t exist, which is why I presented my position that a de facto denial does exist. The OP can take issue with my position as he sees fit, but I think it would be a minor point of contention, really.


I’m saying that there are a whole number of reasons for which “defunding the police” could be the suggested approach - that does need to deny facts; you have assumed out of whole clothe that the motivation is because BLM assume that there is low crime.
I have not assumed that; you are reading things I have not written or even thought to myself. What I am saying is that for BLM’s stated goal— less police— to be implemented, they must ignore inconvenient facts and cause and effect.

And revisiting your previous response as everything else proceeds from it:

There’s all manner of motivations that are not predicated on such denial; and simply assuming the motivation that implies denial out of all the possibilities is called “begging the question”.
The best way I know how to untie your word pretzels and offer greater clarity on this matter is by way of analogy, but I predict you won’t like it:

Me: “Enjoying a spaghetti dinner essentially involves getting marinara spots on your shirt.”

You: “There are various motivations to enjoy eating spaghetti other than to get sauce on one’s shirt. Simply assuming the single motivation to get sauce on one’s shirt is known as ‘begging the question.’”
Topic's author
#80
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@cristo71
There’s all manner of motivations that are not predicated on such denial; and simply assuming the motivation that implies denial out of all the possibilities is called “begging the question”.
The best way I know how to untie your word pretzels and offer greater clarity on this matter is by way of analogy, but I predict you won’t like it:

Me: “Enjoying a spaghetti dinner essentially involves getting marinara spots on your shirt.”

You: “There are various motivations to enjoy eating spaghetti other than to get sauce on one’s shirt. Simply assuming the single motivation to get sauce on one’s shirt is known as ‘begging the question.’”
THIS!!!

Word pretzels. I love it!!! 

You essentially covered everything there is to know about Ramshutu and their style of engagement with others. Their penchant for circular arguments, strawmans, red herrings, so on and so forth knows no bounds. 
#81
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 1,035
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
I thought it was apparent from the last time you posted this sort of racist drivel that the FBI crime stats are missing more than 1 in 10 police departments reporting their data and that there is no standard definition of race when applied to these unverified, unanalysed statistics. Each police department defines race differently.

I also thought it was apparent from the last time you posted that even the FBI themselves said their data does not support crime ranking of any kind because it is incomplete data that does not take into account sociological conditions and other factors that influence crime.
Topic's author
#82
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Public-Choice
I thought it was apparent from the last time you posted this sort of racist drivel that the FBI crime stats are missing more than 1 in 10 police departments reporting their data and that there is no standard definition of race when applied to these unverified, unanalysed statistics. Each police department defines race differently.
I also thought it was apparent from the last time you posted that even the FBI themselves said their data does not support crime ranking of any kind because it is incomplete data that does not take into account sociological conditions and other factors that influence crime.
Nothing I've posted = racist/racism. Truth does NOT equal racism.

You've already been proven wrong on the number of participating police departments, including universities, et al. More than 80-90% of LEAs report data to the FBI. 

There is a standard definition of racial classifications. It's the same as used by the US Census Bureau. The only issue is Hispanics, since that is not a "race." They more often than not get lumped in with whites, which really skews the data against whites. 

Criminologists analyze the data collected and extrapolated into the respective reports, tables, etc. of the UCR. Again, you were already told this.

In short, your denialism knows no bounds.

Sociological conditions, blah blah blah is completely irrelevant to the raw data being used to report criminological findings. 
#83
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,945
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@Avery
Ya, read a history book. Every race in the world has committed genocide or done horrendous awful things to people. The default is to teach children to hate and kill other races and blame those races for their shitty lot in life. This is still taught to this day. 
#84
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@cristo71
I have not assumed that; you are reading things I have not written or even thought to myself. What I am saying is that for BLM’s stated goal— less police— to be implemented, they must ignore inconvenient facts and cause and effect.

Possibly - I can imagine there’s a wealth of data and studies about approaches to community policing they maybe ignoring; but must it ignore inconvenient facts about crime rates, crime statistics and the current level of crime in black communities? No.

You’re assuming that the only way you can support defunding the police is if you ignore crime data - but that’s not true: if someone thinks that the current police force is ineffective in reducing crime in their community, and that better approaches that takes funding away from the police, and uses it for specific health and social programs that deal with route causes of many of the issues; and remove much of the police-population antagonism, militarized police presence and structure that is unnecessary for serving the community: that’s supporting defunding the police - while being fully aware of the need for public safety and crime rates. That’s mostly what defunding the police entails.

That’s the issue i’m taking with your argument, the suggestion that  you necessarily can’t be for defunding the police unless you ignore crime  data - because that constructs unreasonable assumptions about the motivations - what people are trying to so by defunding the police.

Me: “Enjoying a spaghetti dinner essentially involves getting marinara spots on your shirt.”

You: “There are various motivations to enjoy eating spaghetti other than to get sauce on one’s shirt. Simply assuming the single motivation to get sauce on one’s shirt is known as ‘begging the question.’

That’s not a good analogy: as this one doesn’t have an assumption baked in to the premise.

Let’s try a climate change one:

“The green party obviously deny climate change because they want to close nuclear power stations.

This one has the assumption. Green party is BLM, climate change is the crime stats, nuclear power.

The conclusion is that the Green Party deny climate change; but if you examine the argument - what is baked into the statement is the implicit assumption that closing nuclear power stations implies climate change denial. If there was another reason for wanting to shut nuclear power stations that didn’t involve denial - the statement would not follow. Because you’re not establishing that closing power station must necessarily suggest climate change denial; it’s an assumption you make that forces your conclusion - begging the question.
#85
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,945
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@Avery
www um never mind weird shit happened disregard
#86
Avery
Avery's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 323
1
2
5
Avery's avatar
Avery
1
2
5
-->
@sadolite
It has never been about race.
Do you think every race has precisely the same capacity for violence, despite evolving in completely different parts of the world and having different genes?
Ya   [I've cut the rest that doesn't address the question]
Well, there we go. You believe there are no genetic differences for violence in human races, despite them evolving in completely different environments.

Do you also believe there are no genetic differences between human races at all? Lactose tolerance? Height? Sweating?
#87
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,945
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@Avery
Human DNA is human DNA. Mental disorders and physical disorders are present in all races. All races have short and tall people all races have all the same shit and problems . Every race has the same choice, they can  pull their pants down before they shit or they can shit in their pants. Its your individual choice no matter what race you are.
#88
Avery
Avery's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 323
1
2
5
Avery's avatar
Avery
1
2
5
-->
@sadolite
Well, there we go. You believe there are no genetic differences for violence in human races, despite them evolving in completely different environments.

Do you also believe there are no genetic differences between human races at all? Lactose tolerance? Height? Sweating?

Human DNA is human DNA. Mental disorders and physical disorders are present in all races. All races have short and tall people all races have all the same shit and problems .
You didn't answer my question.

Here's a specific example to make it clear what I am talking about:

For example, lactose intolerance for British (UK) people is 5-15%, but it's 90-100% for East Asians (depending on the study you read) Percentage of Lactose Intolerance by Ethnicity (and Geographic Region) - Milk Pro Con . I'm not asking whether every race can have people with lactose tolerance. I'm asking you whether you recognize that there are genetic differences between British and East Asian lactose intolerance.

I'm not asking whether races can have short people, mental problems or lactose intolerance. I'm asking whether there are genetic differences between human races.

What is your response to that question?
Topic's author
#89
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@sadolite
Every race in the world has committed genocide or done horrendous awful things to people. 
While this is 100% factually accurate, black Americans say otherwise.

As of late, they lay claim that their ancestors - specific to North America - were the only ones in the world to experience racism, slavery, bigotry, and suppression by so-called "white supremacists." This couldn't be any further from the truth. And yet it is the driving narrative that is used to excuse the negative and oft criminal behavior of black Americans while ignoring the glaring fact that non-born blacks that emigrate to the US do far better across all measures than native born blacks. That alone speaks volumes. 

#90
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,945
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@Avery
What does any of this have to do with violence. Physical intolerances to substances exist in all races. Violence is a learned/taught  behavior. You can choose to shit in or pants or you can pull them down first. Its your choice.