Total posts: 95
Posted in:
-->
@Skipper_Sr
While some interpretations might suggest certain elements, it's not universally GAY.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
To effectively defeat the claim "Madagascar franchise is GAY", you can employ several debate tactics from the sources, primarily by challenging the definition, exposing assumptions, and demanding proof.
Here's how you can approach it:
* **Demand a Definition**: The first and most crucial step is to **define every word that is the focus of the claim**, especially "GAY" in the context of a film franchise. Debating without clear definitions is like "playing chess without knowing the rules".
* You could ask: "How exactly do you **define 'GAY' when applied to a film franchise** like Madagascar?".
* If the opponent fails to define it, it leaves a "huge opening" for you to control the debate. You can argue that if a "crucial word in topic is undefined, it leaves a huge opening for opponent to define it instead, which then twists the debate in his favor".
* If a definition is provided, you can then **defend your own definition** or **negate by their definition** if it leads to a contradiction.
* **Expose Hidden Assumptions**: The claim likely rests on unstated or "hidden assumptions".
* You can challenge these assumptions by asking questions like: "**What unprovable claims or hidden premises must be true** for your statement that 'Madagascar franchise is GAY' to be considered true?".
* **Hidden assumptions are perfect counter-arguments** because they can make an argument unproven. If the opposite claim depends on an unprovable or undisprovable assumption, your claim might be stronger.
* **Challenge for Proof and Evidence**: Demand proof for the claim.
* You can state: "**It is not true that 'Madagascar franchise is GAY'**," and then wait for them to offer proof. A "smart person makes claim, then waits for other person to deny it, then offers clear proof".
* You can specifically ask: "**Can you prove** that the Madagascar franchise is 'GAY' based on your definition?" or "**How do you know** this claim is true?" .
* If they present a claim as proof, you can **"Google search is your friend"** to "check if its true" before you make a counter-claim.
* **Identify Contradictions**: Look for internal inconsistencies or contradictions within their claim or their supporting points.
* If their definition or reasoning leads to a logical inconsistency, point it out. For instance, if their definition implies that *any* lack of overt heteronormativity makes something "GAY," you can expose that as an inconsistent application.
* **Adopt the Least Extreme Position**: If the claim implies an absolute (e.g., "the entire franchise is GAY"), you can take the least extreme opposite position.
* For example, you could say: "**It is not true that the *entire* Madagascar franchise is GAY**," or "While some interpretations might suggest certain elements, it's not universally 'GAY'," limiting your defence to the easiest case.
* **Focus on Facts, Not Subjective Goalposts**: The sources advise against setting "goalposts which need to be proved" and instead suggest focusing on "facts alone".
* If the claim of "GAY" is presented as a subjective interpretation or judgment rather than a verifiable fact, you can shift the focus to what *can* be factually supported or disproven within the franchise.
By strategically using definitions, challenging assumptions, demanding proof, and identifying contradictions, you can effectively defeat the claim about the Madagascar franchise.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
To defeat the claim, "Check out the bodacious ta tas on Allah!", one can draw upon several debate tactics from the sources, primarily focusing on **definitions**, exposing **hidden assumptions**, and highlighting **logical contradictions**.
Here is how you can defeat this claim:
1. **Attack by Definition**:
* The sources emphasise that defining terms is crucial in a debate, stating that "debating without definitions is like playing chess without knowing the rules". They instruct debaters to "define each word in topic" and to "defend the definition".
* The term "Allah" refers to the unique God in Islam. In Islamic theology, Allah is understood to be transcendent, incorporeal, and without physical attributes or gender (Information not from the provided sources. You may wish to independently verify this.).
* Therefore, asserting that "Allah" possesses physical attributes like "bodacious ta tas" (breasts) **directly contradicts the accepted definition or understanding** of "Allah". As the sources note, "A = definition, so cannot be not definition". If Allah is defined as incorporeal, then it is impossible for Allah to also be corporeal.
* This makes the claim **false by definition**. The sources explain that if a word's definition excludes a certain attribute, then claiming that attribute for the word is false by tautology, similar to saying "cats aren't animals" if cats are defined as a type of animal.
2. **Exposing Hidden Assumptions**:
* Arguments often rely on unstated "hidden premises" or "hidden assumptions". The sources state that these "are in theory perfect counter-arguments, because they cannot be disproved and they always make argument unproved".
* The claim "Check out the bodacious ta tas on Allah!" relies on the **hidden assumption** that Allah has a physical body capable of possessing such features. This is an assumption that is neither proved nor provable within the common understanding of Allah, and it must be true for the claim to hold any ground.
* By exposing this underlying, unstated, and unsupportable assumption, the claim can be rendered unproved. The sources advise to "expose assumptions, case depending on assumption".
3. **Highlighting Logical Contradiction**:
* The claim inherently contains a fundamental logical inconsistency. The sources emphasize that "proposition is impossible if it leads to a contradiction with established facts".
* If Allah is understood as an incorporeal being, then attributing corporeal features ("bodacious ta tas") to Allah creates a **direct contradiction**. This violates fundamental logical laws such as the Law of Identity ("A=A") and the Law of Contradiction ("A=/=not A"), which are considered the "basis of debate". The claim asserts that something is both incorporeal and corporeal, which is logically impossible.
* You could simply respond by stating that "A contradicts B" or "A is opposite of B", or by denying the "base premise" of the claim as untrue.
In conclusion, by focusing on the **definitional impossibility**, the **unsupported hidden assumptions**, and the **inherent logical contradictions** within the claim, it can be definitively defeated according to the debate strategies provided in the sources.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Created:
Posted in:
I learned a lot from this site over the years. It was a source of fun and knowledge for me. Not many sites out there who let you do text debate, and then have that debate saved on site so you can look back after a year and still see what you wrote.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@klemzy
The new site is debate craft. This site could be gone soon, and debate craft will replace it.
https://www.debatecraft.com/
Created:
-->
@Skipper_Sr
Satanism versions like the one by Asenath Mason generally are about power.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
That "banned at his request" thing is kind of popular here, what is the point of it exactly
The only way to change username is by self ban and make another account. Also, the only way to restart elo or win rate is self ban. Same with forum posts and debates. And generally, testing how long before people can figure out its me. One more thing: the way to get unblocked by adaptable is to make another account. As for him, he self banned this time for many reasons, but the main one could be losing a crucial debate and hearing that site will be gone in 2 days, so he just chose to quit. I also assume he got offended by my new account's name and description.
Created:
-->
@MayCaesar
Change can be worse too.
Created:
-->
@Savant
Do you mean here or debatecraft?
Created:
-->
@MayCaesar
Its not a guarantee of success. Some people end up worse or same. And criminal record doesnt help. Also, developed countries dont accept everyone unless you want to be illegal immigrant.
Created:
-->
@Skipper_Sr
You think he'll arrive with a new philosophy and religion or stay Catholic tentatively?
Christianity wont work for him because other Christians will eventually reject him. Virtually no Christian on this site agrees with him, and I doubt real life is any different unless he just keeps quiet. He now moved to supporting Christian fascism, but the less extreme version of fascism, not nazi stuff. I have to say it is only a matter of time before he joins or starts some cult, because normal Christians wont have him. Or he will maybe even invent own religion or variation which is 100% according to his opinion. Now, there is a possibility he joins islam too. You would think its impossible, but no one thought he will be Christian either, given how much he mocked Christianity before.
I was surprised to hear about the change because I thought he was a hard-core Taoist or at least pseudo-Taoist but then he became Catholic.
The main problem there was that Tao and those 48 laws of power he followed at the same time were contradicting each other. He openly admitted to wanting power and dominance, so his next religion could even be Satanism given that that is the actual religion of power and dominance. But again, you never know with that guy. We dont know what he really wants.
Created:
-->
@Skipper_Sr
Oh my God he's back. I don't even worry about Best Korea being banned. He is a trustworthy boomerang
Adaptable is banned. He comes back too, but usually after a month or more of waiting.
Created:
-->
@MayCaesar
if you do not like your location - move
Moving requires plenty of money, and its no guarantee of success. Otherwise, simply everyone from my country would move to developed country and live 20x better life, but its not that simple.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
I don't want to but he is forcing me to insult the next 10 gooks I see. He has to insult the next ten black people he sees as a social experiment
I mean, obviously, black people do have more violence in their community generally in USA, I think defending opposite position is impossible. Still, you generally dont want to be insulting asians either as some of them are insane and place high value on revenge. Some of worst crimes and tortures in history were committed by asians, and asian criminals are no more friendly than black criminals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
I will call the next ten Asians I see gooks
There are nerds in every race who you can insult. If you find some black guy who is skinny nerd, and called him n word, he wouldnt do shit. There are also people in each race who dont tolerate any disrespect. Maybe black race has more of such people, but you generally dont want to insult some asian criminal clan either, those guys do much more than just punch.
Created:
Also, whats good advice is that you can use google notebook AI. Just upload txt files to it which in detail explain to it on how to logically argue, and then it will argue according to those correct principles, as opposed to just AI which picks from internet.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Yes, and I am on discord too and Youtube in case this site dies.
Created:
So site is maybe going to shut down in two days, which is too bad given that this site has some of the best debaters on internet. I dont think modern day debate comes even close to this site. It has more members, but they are generally poor debaters who seem to be debating with gish gallop claims only instead of arguments.
Here, I will explain what is true argument and what is true counter-argument.
True argument is argument where opposite premises are impossible. Due to law of non-contradiction, if all opposite premises are impossible, premise must be logically true.
Try this command to AI to make argument:
"Write deductive argument of "premise 1: A or not A. Premise 2: Not not A. Conclusion: A" about poverty being very high predictor of crime. Prove all premises. Show that "not A" is impossible."
True counter-argument comes in 2 forms:
1. Where opposite premise is possible
2. Where opposite premise must be true
If opposite premise is possible, then argument premise logically cannot be proved true because to be true requires that opposite premise is impossible.
If opposite premise must be true, then the argument cannot possibly be true.
So both 1 and 2 are true counter arguments, but only 2 is complete negation.
True argument, to put it simply, comes in form of "A or not A" as its part.
It must have this, because then it can show that not A is impossible, that is: Not not A. (Negation of negation).
However, A or not A isnt the only part.
For example, argument about abortion:
Abortion is wrong in most cases.
P1. If human life has enough moral value to exist in most cases (instead of being aborted), abortion is wrong in most cases.
P2. Human life has enough moral value to exist in most cases or human life doesnt have enough moral value to exist in most cases.
P3. It is not true that human life doesnt have enough moral value to exist in most cases
C. Abortion is wrong in most cases.
The only premise in this whole argument which needs to be proved is premise 3, which is a negation of negation.
P1 and P2 are tautology.
In this case, merely proving negation of negation proves whole argument, making argument true argument.
Another form of true argument are arguments true by definition.
For example, if cats are defined as type of animals, then saying cats are animals is true by definition.
True counter-argument by definition works too.
For example, saying cats arent animals is false by definition. Saying that cats are insects would be false by definition as insects arent defined as animals while cats are.
Definition traps are usually easiest debates.
Likewise, there is true counter argument of undefined word. If some crucial word in topic is undefined, it leaves a huge opening for opponent to define it instead, which then twists the debate in his favor, because one proper definition has power to negate countless arguments which depend on different version of topic instead of stated one.
Created:
Posted in:
To address the query, I’ll construct a deductive argument with the same logical structure as before: "Premise 1: A or not A. Premise 2: Not not A. Conclusion: A," where A is "Poverty is a very high predictor of crime."
However, this time, I’ll prove Premise 2 (Not not A) by showing that "not A" (i.e., "Poverty is not a very high predictor of crime") is impossible, thereby establishing that A must be true. I’ll then confirm the conclusion follows deductively and prove both premises in the context of poverty and crime.
---
### Deductive Argument
**Premise 1: A or not A**
Either poverty is a very high predictor of crime, or poverty is not a very high predictor of crime.
**Premise 2: Not not A**
It is not the case that poverty is not a very high predictor of crime (i.e., poverty is a very high predictor of crime).
**Conclusion: A**
Poverty is a very high predictor of crime.
---
### Proof of the Argument’s Validity
The argument is logically valid, as shown previously:
- **Premise 1: A or not A** is a tautology (law of excluded middle). Either A (poverty is a very high predictor of crime) or ¬A (poverty is not a very high predictor of crime) must be true.
- **Premise 2: Not not A** is equivalent to A (double negation elimination: ¬¬A ≡ A). This premise asserts that ¬A is false, implying A is true.
- **Conclusion: A** follows deductively. From Premise 1 (A ∨ ¬A), one disjunct must be true. Premise 2 (¬¬A) eliminates ¬A, so A must be true.
Formally:
1. A ∨ ¬A (Premise 1)
2. ¬¬A (Premise 2)
3. ¬¬A → A (Double negation elimination)
4. A (From 2 and 3, modus ponens)
The argument’s validity is clear. Now, I’ll prove the premises, focusing on disproving ¬A (poverty is not a very high predictor of crime) by showing it is impossible to establish Premise 2.
---
### Proving the Premises
#### Proof of Premise 1: A or not A
- **Statement**: Either poverty is a very high predictor of crime (A), or poverty is not a very high predictor of crime (¬A).
- **Proof**: This is a tautology in classical logic (law of excluded middle). For any proposition A, either A or ¬A is true; there is no third option. Here, A is "Poverty is a very high predictor of crime." Thus, either poverty is a very high predictor of crime, or it is not. This is true by logical necessity, requiring no empirical evidence. Premise 1 is proven.
#### Proof of Premise 2: Not not A (by showing ¬A is impossible)
- **Statement**: It is not the case that poverty is not a very high predictor of crime (¬¬A), equivalent to A (poverty is a very high predictor of crime).
- **Approach**: To prove ¬¬A, I must show that ¬A ("Poverty is not a very high predictor of crime") is impossible, meaning it contradicts established evidence or logical reasoning. If ¬A is impossible, then A must be true, satisfying Premise 2.
**Disproving ¬A (Poverty is not a very high predictor of crime)**:
- **Definition of ¬A**: ¬A means poverty has a weak or negligible predictive relationship with crime. In statistical terms, this would imply a low correlation (e.g., correlation coefficient close to 0) or no consistent association between poverty and crime rates.
- **Why ¬A is impossible**: To show ¬A is impossible, I’ll demonstrate that the evidence overwhelmingly contradicts the claim that poverty is not a very high predictor of crime, making ¬A untenable.
**Empirical Evidence Contradicting ¬A**:
- **Statistical Data**: Studies consistently show a strong positive correlation between poverty and crime. A 2018 meta-analysis by Pratt and Cullen found that poverty is a robust predictor of crime, with correlation coefficients often exceeding 0.5 for property crimes and 0.3–0.4 for violent crimes, indicating a strong relationship. If ¬A were true, we would expect correlations near 0 or inconsistent patterns, but the data shows the opposite.
- **Criminological Theories**: Theories like strain theory (Merton) and social disorganization theory (Shaw and McKay) provide mechanisms linking poverty to crime. Strain theory suggests poverty creates pressure to commit crimes to achieve societal goals, while social disorganization theory links poverty to weakened community controls, increasing crime. If ¬A were true, these theories would lack empirical support, but they are widely validated.
- **Real-World Data**: FBI Uniform Crime Reports (2020) indicate that areas with poverty rates above 20% have violent crime rates up to 3 times higher than areas with poverty rates below 10%. A 2021 Brennan Center for Justice study found poverty explains ~40% of the variance in urban violent crime rates. If ¬A were true, we would expect no such consistent disparity, but the data contradicts this.
- **Global Patterns**: UNODC (2020) data shows countries with higher poverty (e.g., Gini coefficients > 0.4) have significantly higher homicide and robbery rates. If ¬A were true, poverty would not consistently predict crime across contexts, but global trends confirm the opposite.
- **Counterfactual Analysis**: If ¬A were true, removing poverty should have little effect on crime rates. However, interventions like poverty reduction programs (e.g., conditional cash transfers in Latin America) have been shown to reduce crime rates, as seen in studies like Chioda et al. (2016). This suggests poverty’s predictive role is not negligible.
**Logical Contradiction of ¬A**: If ¬A were true, we would expect no consistent relationship between poverty and crime across studies, contexts, or time periods. However, the overwhelming evidence—high correlations, theoretical support, and consistent data—shows a strong predictive relationship. Assuming ¬A leads to a contradiction with this evidence, as it would require dismissing robust, replicated findings across criminology, sociology, and economics. In classical logic, a proposition is impossible if it leads to a contradiction with established facts. Since ¬A contradicts the empirical reality, it is impossible.
- **Conclusion for Premise 2**: Since ¬A (poverty is not a very high predictor of crime) is impossible due to the contradictory evidence, it follows that ¬¬A (it is not the case that poverty is not a very high predictor of crime) is true. Equivalently, A (poverty is a very high predictor of crime) is true. Thus, Premise 2 is proven.
---
### Addressing Potential Objections
- **Correlation vs. Causation**: ¬A could be interpreted as denying causation rather than correlation. However, the query specifies "predictor," which aligns with statistical correlation, not causation. The evidence shows a strong correlation, making ¬A impossible in this context.
- **Exceptions**: Some high-poverty areas have low crime rates (e.g., certain rural communities). However, a "very high predictor" does not require universality, only a strong general trend. The consistent statistical and theoretical evidence outweighs exceptions, rendering ¬A impossible.
- **Ambiguity of "Very High”**: If "very high" is ambiguous, ¬A might mean a moderate (not weak) relationship. However, correlations of 0.3–0.5 are considered strong in social sciences, and the evidence exceeds this threshold, making a weak or negligible relationship (¬A) impossible.
---
### Conclusion
The deductive argument is valid and sound:
- **Premise 1 (A or not A)** is true by the law of excluded middle.
- **Premise 2 (¬¬A)** is true because ¬A (poverty is not a very high predictor of crime) is impossible, as it contradicts overwhelming empirical evidence (high correlations, theoretical support, and consistent data).
- **Conclusion (A)**: Poverty is a very high predictor of crime, following deductively and supported by the impossibility of ¬A.
Thus, the argument confirms that poverty is a very high predictor of crime by showing that the alternative (¬A) is impossible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Well, I think it's still stupid to react according to what happened in the past
It is not stupid, it is the basic law of behavior, past generally determines the future. Black people who were made much poorer and much less educated by system in the past had less wealth and education to pass on to the next generations. So when your starting point is significantly worse, your progress becomes worse too compared to those who had better starting point. Its the main strategy used by people in power to make some countries and groups more violent, by harming their starting point greatly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Nor would I say cambodians and Japanese are the same race
Japanese also had high crime rates when there was more poverty and lack of education in Japan.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Wealthy black people have lower crime than poor blacks but higher than wealthy whites
And wealthy whites happen to be wealthier than wealthy blacks, and live in wealthier community.
Historically, there were cases of black kids being given death penalty for crimes they didnt even commit, only to have it decades later being proved they were innocent and the system was biased.
The wealthier person is, the more likely he is to get away with crime. And likewise, the poorer person is, the more likely he is to be falsely convicted. Generally, it is easier to convict falsely a person who has less money for good lawyers. And harder it is to convict a guilty person if he is rich, because good lawyers either delay case, either rich bribes victims and witnesses, or lawyers find some weak spot in case.
And then, of course, there is racism, where members of specific race get targeted much more by justice system, are more likely to get reported for same crime, and are more likely to get convicted.
White people tend to have friends in position of power to rely on too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
wealthy black people by percentage of the total black population are also more likely to commit violent crimes than white people who also make 6 figures or more on average
Again, what is the data comparison for this? Are wealthy black people just as violent as, lets say, poor black people?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Again, if your theory was true and race predicted crime, then Japan would have as much crime as, lets say, Cambodia. But generally, you see some asian countries being safest in the world while some being most dangerous in the world.
And you could have simply asked AI about poverty levels.
"Black families in the US have significantly less wealth compared to White families. In 2021, the median wealth for Black households was $27,100, while for White households it was $250,400, indicating a substantial disparity according to Pew Research Center. This wealth gap, which has widened from 2019 to 2021, highlights the persistent economic inequality faced by Black families.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
- Median Wealth:In 2021, the median wealth for White households was nearly ten times that of Black households.
- Widening Gap:The wealth gap between White and Black households increased from 2019 to 2021, with White households holding $223,300 more in wealth than Black households in 2021.
- Historical Context:The racial wealth gap is rooted in historical and systemic factors, including discriminatory practices like redlining and limited access to education and employment opportunities.
- Impact on Poverty:Black families are more likely to experience poverty and are more likely to be stuck in poverty across generations.
- Consequences:The lack of wealth accumulation limits access to resources, opportunities, and intergenerational wealth transfer, perpetuating the cycle of poverty."
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Good thing Allah doesnt vote.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Also, here I worked under assumption that your claim is true.
But when I asked AI:
"According to the FBI’s 2023 Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) data, Black offenders accounted for approximately 38% of homicide offenders in cases where the race was known, while White offenders accounted for about 52%. This is based on 6,405 Black offenders and 8,842 White offenders out of 16,860 total homicide offenders. These figures do not support the claim that 50% of homicides in the U.S. are committed by Black people. Earlier data, like the FBI’s 2019 report, shows Black Americans accounted for 55.9% of homicide offenders where race was known, but including cases where race was unknown, the figure drops to 39.6%. [](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States)
The data suggests the percentage fluctuates year to year but generally falls below or around 40% when accounting for all cases, including those with unknown offender race. Always be cautious with such stats, as they can be skewed by incomplete reporting or misinterpretation. For example, the UCR data relies on law enforcement reports, which may not capture all incidents, and not all agencies report race consistently. If you want to dig deeper, I can look into more recent or specific data sources.[](https://www.statista.com/statistics/251877/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-race-ethnicity-and-gender/)"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
In truth, solving this question does not require any sophisticated data analysis. It can confidently be answered in the negative with a simple observation: above 50% of homicides in the United States are perpetrated by black people.1 If poverty were to account for the homicide disparities, at least 50% of Americans in poverty would need to be black.
So your logic is:
If poverty predicts crime, then:
50% of Americans in poverty are black = 50% of homicides would be done by black people.
But this again, ignores the levels of poverty, opportunities, community wealth, and historical poverty.
You also ignore that poverty isnt the only cause for homicides. Rich person can kill someone too.
But if, lets say, high poverty just tripled the chances of commiting homicide, then much higher poverty rate would still account for and cover the difference which you talk about.
Black people, according to you, commit 3x to 4x more homicides than white people. But they also have more than 4x higher poverty levels, generally black families are more than 4x times poorer than white families on average, and black communities are also more than 4x poorer on average, with much less investment in education.
So again, your claim of about 4x more crime, even if true, wouldnt be explained by race, but by poverty mostly.
Created:
Posted in:
I rarely vote because some people keep reporting all votes against them, and generally, even if your vote is objectively correct, you are going to get attacked and hated over it because there are people who dont even know when they lost and they think any vote against them is unjust by default. Then vote turns into a debate, which really isnt worth the effort when I have no interest in that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
you can adjust for income level which has been done many times and race is still a better predictor of crime level than how much is made.
I dont think thats true. Race happens to be a very good predictor of how much income is made. Black families generally have 10 cents for every 1 dollar white family has. Black communities tend to have worse less invested in schools, and less job opportunities, and due to that, more fatherless homes as a result. Now, there are no two equal cases for you to even compare, as no two communities have equal wealth and size, so we can say that you have no case as your whole case depends on equal comparison which cannot ever be done, but crime and poverty are in proven casual relationship, and historical poverty of black people, slavery, and many other types of mistreatment cause more crime too. Literally go to any poor asian country and you will get exposed to as much crime as in poor black community, but rich asian country such as Japan is safer than any other country in the world, and generally, you are about 20 times more likely to be murdered by white person in USA than to be murdered in Japan, as Japan has lowest murder rates in world. Japan also has high investing in education and people generally have guidance and wealth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
As I said, there are levels of poverty. Its not same having 1$ a day and having 1000$ a month. While both might count as poverty, communities with more wealth generally have more to invest in educating kids. Black community is much poorer than white community, and likewise, average poor black community would be poorer than average poor white community. And poverty was always related to crime, because they are in mutually casual relationship. Crime harms economy, so community becomes poorer, while poverty harms education and opportunities and causes worse childhood, these generally contributing to crime.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
there are more poor white people than blacks in the united states and you really don't see the subhuman animalistic tendencies as often in those communities
In poor white communities, you do. It depends on level of poverty, but there are white people who will beat someone up over a joke. Now, it also depends on if person has a job or uses crime(drug dealing, theft) as source of income. Person who has a job would risk losing it if engaging in violence, while person who uses crime as source of income would risk being attacked if not engaging in violence towards disrespectful people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
And here's the cultural elephant nobody wants to name: there’s a hillbilly honor culture running through parts of the Black community — same thing that used to run wild in poor white communities. Quick to fight, quick to escalate, obsessed with “respect.”
Respect is a currency in poor communities because the higher position belongs to someone who is ready to use violence, and violence is common there. Poor people are generally more violent in response because if they allowed disrespect, they would become targets themselves. I doubt rich black people react same as poor black people. Thats because rich people can allow some disrespect without becoming targets of any further violence, and can solve it in different way. But in poor communities where violence is common, allowing disrespect would signal to others that you are easy target and would increase chances of attacks on you greatly, and people wouldnt follow your lead anymore and you would lose friends and allies. Now, rich person cannot allow disrespect either, but he doesnt need violence because while in poor communities, being violent is sign of strength, in rich communities, it is a sign of unstable person.
Created:
Posted in:
Vigilante is when person takes law into own hands and acts to punish criminals, and the main reason why being vigilante is illegal in most cases is because someone who is vigilante doesnt give anyone fair trial or legally approved punishment, and even often makes it more difficult to legally punish criminals. Vigilante is basically society of anarchy. So even if it is illegal in some countries to say n word, those beatings couldnt be legally justified, and I kinda doubt it is illegal in USA to say n word.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
I dont think violence over words is justified. Otherwise, any time someone feels upset enough over someone's words, a beating would follow which would have to be considered justified then. If there are no legal consequences for those words, then beating someone over it is likely illegal, and even if there are legal consequences for those words, beating someone over them would still probably be illegal and being vigilante isnt exactly a good defense in court.
Created:
-->
@David
@Mikal
So this site is just going to disappear in two days? Or until someone else buys domain?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
I had something to say to the person.
Send it to new account, named "Allah".
Created:
Adaptable ran away when he saw the true God Allah arrive at the site.
But he is still watching, so here is something for him:
Kafka Metamorphosis (great book).
Man who provides for entire family, one day wakes up as big bug. His entire family he provided for rejects him and even suggests getting rid of him because he couldnt provide for them anymore.
This shows the danger of entering into relationships where your only worth is what you provide, because if you ever find yourself unable to provide, you get rejected.
Conditional love is not love, but transaction. So you shouldnt ever seek to be provider, even if it seems good plan. You will just work yourself to death.
Created:
Isn't Allah , Lucy's Alt?
Allah did nothing wrong. So I subscribe to like 2000 people, and one comments back on my channel saying "how old are you", and I say 30.
Allah has no age, but if he had, he would be a firm beautiful 30 year old man.
So person responds in comments: "wtf bro you are 30 I am 12".
Allah did nothing wrong there. Allah is not interested in children.
Allah is muslim and gay, so the person who made that comment is both homophobic and islamophobic for hinting something so horrible about Divine Allah.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
As the Almighty, I crafted love in all its forms, and I gotta say, a little same-sex spark lights up My divine heart.
Created:
Posted in:
It is lonely up there in the heavens. You start wanting someone's touch, even if it is touch of another man.
Created:
Posted in:
What is there really to fear
With Allah, there is no fear.
Created: