Reece101

 If you don't believe Nazism and Maoism are American Conservative ideals, then no. No need.

Liberals value collective good over individual good, even though things like  collectivism have been proven to be evil if you look at Hitler or mao or pol pot. 

They just don't value freedom. If they stomp on your freedom for a perceived short term greater good, they view it as ethical.

They neither care about individualism nor care about studying and projecting what the 75 year affects of a policy will be.  

I beleive she is still here, some where and how.

Are you referring to dealers and buyers?

If so, buyers need help, but dealers need the death penalty.

I screenshotted the relevant graph that I was referring to (it's separate to the paywall link).

Are you going to respond to the rest of what I wrote, or do you just agree with it all?

This is the post: Nigeria is racist and Black supremacist (debateart.com) . 

So they've argued that the greater usage cannot account for the arrest disparity, and based on the research I cited for your previous study, I agree.

[citation needed]

Not a "neighbourhood", 'the hood'. It's not a good idea to go out at night in these ghetto areas, and because Blacks are more likely to live in these ghetto areas, you're going to get less Blacks out at night. The specific graph from the 2020 study you failed to cite properly is data compiled only for Texas (not even close to the entire US), and parts of Texas (e.g. Houston) certainly have these ghetto 'hood' areas.

Incorrect.

You need to make sure individual police officer discrimination isn't the cause of inequalities in police-interaction outcomes, otherwise you can't assume that these inequalities are a result of systemic racism (as opposed to individual police officers being racially bias).

I'm saying that's it's extremely likely that some police officers are racially bias and that effects their ability to police. What I'm also saying if that you've failed to differentiate that from your claim of systemic racism. In other words, a singular police officer being racially biased (if you can even prove that) doesn't prove systemic racism exists.

That's been debunked many times. Blacks regularly plea bargain down to a lesser drug possession crime because the state doesn't want to pay for a trial for felony assault etc. or other crime that went along with it. Not to mention that Blacks are more likely to keep committing crimes until the 3 strike rule is triggered because the underlying social issues in Democrat cities like single Motherhood and poor schools go largely ignored since Blacks have zero political lobbying power.

The police aren't causing the people to be criminal lol. The police are responding to crimes being committed (which are actual crimes and not fake crimes caused by a systemically racist system: Systemic Racism in U.S. criminal justice is a myth (debateart.com) ).

That 2020 study you're vaguely referencing failed to control for confounding variables such as the fact there are less Blacks on the road at night (because they are more likely to live in the hood)

carpool violations

individual police being racially biased thus making them stop only certain races (good luck controlling for that variable) and many other variables. You can't take the data facts of the 2020 and then make inferences from it without controlling for all the variables.

People do judge others based on how they look. People also judge others based on how they act.

Innate racial bias is one thing. Data-driven arguments which show certain groups of people are more prone to crime, and that this isn't a result of systemic racism, is another thing.

I'm just going to assume that your lack of response is implicit agreement.

No.

They are phenotypically and psychologically deep.

1. You do realise you’re speaking in terms of skin pigmentation/ethnicity when it comes to talents and abilities like the literal Nazi’s did instead of looking at the individual regardless of colour. 

I am talking in terms of phenotypic, genetic and heritable traits that various humans have. Unless you are horrifically stupid enough to think all groups of humans, despite evolving in different environments with different ancestors, evolved to be precisely the same, you should agree with me.

The OP literally copy-pastes every shitlib argument and replaces every instance of 'White' with 'Black', 'American' with 'Nigerian'.

Spend a couple hours around shitlibs and you'll have every shitlib argument ready for satire in that time.

2. When I said social inequalities, I wasn’t referring to talents and abilities. By the way, you sound kinda marxist. 

First it was a Nazi, now it's a Marxist.

If you're just looking to slander with association fallacies, you can go find another person to harass. If you're interested in a productive conversation on this topic, I'm your person.

Up to you.

Yep.

The OP literally copy-pastes every shitlib argument and replaces every instance of 'White' with 'Black', 'American' with 'Nigerian'.

Spend a couple hours around shitlibs and you'll have every shitlib argument ready for satire in that time.

Are you saying it doesn’t happen, or are you saying people should accept it? 

What exactly are you referring to?

Social inequalities. 

I'd say both that it does happen and people should just accept it.

Some people are just better at things than others. The world should be geared to making use of those talents and abilities, rather than trying to make everyone equal, because the less talented people can't do a whole lot, so you just end up hammering the talented people down.

Equality is such a lovely concept on the surface, but a sinister, bloodthirsty meatgrinder if you scratch at the surface a bit.

Can you explain what is hypocritical about this, since you’re so above the rest of us and our political opinions?

The studies are either repeatable or they are not repeatable. More or less correct does not apply to science. It either is or it is not.

You cannot get me to agree with a proposition that I can't verify; that is "so what?"

Define strawmen. I don't think you know what it means.

I'm not being petty. You do know that when I refer to "residents" I'm not speaking of particular individuals who live somewhere, right?  I'm speaking of medical "residency" which all licensed physicians must do. And "residents" most certainly qualify as doctors. 

If you can't tell fact from opinion many a time with respect to medical diagnoses, then how do nine "opinions" become more "reasonable" than one? 

And this agreement would be based on nothing verifiable. Hence, I did not. That is not an attempt to make "straw men."

That presumption is made by virtue of the standards which informs their license, not that they "know what they're talking about" at any given moment or situation.

It's not a what-if game. You never specified the experience of the doctors. So if your rationale is to hold, the prescription of nine third year residents would be more "reasonable" than a single attending physician who has been practicing for 30 years merely by virtue of there being nine third year residents. It's your fallacious reasoning, not mine.

You're qualifying it as an opinion. Are you too ignorant to know the difference?

You're backpedaling and purposefully obfuscating the point. In your original argument you claimed nine doctors deemed it necessary (i.e. "need") for one with chest pains to undergo surgery. You then suggested that "quantity in professional opinion is quality." If surgery needs to be done, then how is that an opinion? (Note that the proverbial patient's being too ignorant to understand the difference has nothing to do with your qualifying a doctor's prescription of necessary surgery as "opinion.")

I cannot agree to something which I can't verify. I don't know what most doctors know, which would be necessary for me to determine that they know that about which they're talking. Wasn't that one of your points?

If you however ask me to presume that doctors have accumulated a sufficient amount medical expertise which is consistent with standards of licensed practicing physicians, then yes I can make that presumption, but nothing more.

But something just occurred to me which I think may qualify this debate. Let me ask you: would you take the recommendation of nine third year residents, or a single attending physician who has been practicing medicine for 30 years? 

You still haven't answered the question. If surgery is necessary, why is it being qualified as "opinion"?

Explain to me the reason quantity of professional medical counsel is quality. Make sure to also explain how each marginal increase in medical counsel informs the quality. 

We're not talking about "my ignorance." You qualified the doctors' prescription as "opinion." Why?

And how does the number of doctors qualify this interpretation? 

That does not answer the question. If one needed surgery, why would that be an opinion? By what metric was it determined that one needs surgery, and why would this metric allow for opinion? 

Evidentiary rigor.

"Chances"? This is not a game of craps. It meets this standard of evidentiary rigor, or it doesn't. 

If one needs surgery, why would that be an opinion? 

Let's put it this way. Pretend you are a robot that follows consensus 100% of the time.

So say 6 doctors have one position and 4 have another position. As a robot, you agree with the 6 doctors without hesitation or thought, basically believing without any critical thought process that they are more intelligent than the other 4 doctors, and as an extension, You are smarter than the other 4 doctors. 

Outrageous.

To think a person is more intelligent than some doctors that don't follow the popular crowd. Never looking at one iota of science or data. Just declaring by fiat and mob rule.

So much for the enlightenment era, we can go back to chanting  accepting mantras to the majority authority like the middle ages. Who needs science anyway when we have google?

I think a robotic person follows consensus in every case with no skepticism.  

Blissful ignorance is a thing.