TWS1405

 I don't find it too relevant if AR-15's don't kill that many people. When they are used they kill the most people. If we look to the worst shootings in Americas history almost all of them are using rifles.

-->@TWS1405

It is a lack of culture due to a lack of personal responsibility, accountability, discipline, respect and mental illness. 

Where does mental illness come from? you're using circular reasoning. We're agreeing, you're just too stubborn to admit it.

Not my problem if you cannot find the data provided by the FBI through their website. The authors of the article did. Or perhaps it is a measure of laziness since you responded awfully quickly.

FBI — Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

Looking at the table. It seems like the article was lying. 600 people died by fist, legs etc. In the year 2020 while 3,000 did by guns. Its actually the same trend all across the board, in all years.

Animals are not murdered. They are killed. Murder is a term relegated to human beings murdering one another. 

Collecting guns has nothing to do with "some form of killing."

Sport shooting has nothing to do with "some form of killing."

Competition shooting has nothing to do with "some form of killing."

Self-defense doesn't always result in killing and has more to do with a show of force in order to deter from killing.

So, no. A weapons "sole purpose" is not "some form of killing."

It doesn't change anything to what i said. Killing is the primary usage of guns then, it changes nothing to the original comment. Guns were also intended for war, with humans. The gun wasn't created to fight animals but man.

-->@TWS1405

My friend, everything is either dictated by your environment or your genetics. If people are not responsible with guns because of genetics its because of the environment (culture).

I've looked at the source in the article, yet i cant seem to find the information at all on the site.

A gun's primary purpose or usage is not "to murder." Americans use guns for the same reasons the Swedes do. Hunting. Sort Shooting. Collecting. And obviously self-defense. Criminals knowing someone is armed won't criminalize them. Too risky. Gun free zones are a free for all. 

Hunting is murdering animals. Regardless, the primary intent of the gun and its sole purpose is some form of killing.

->@TWS1405

You contradicted yourself about 3 times in this comment.

owhere did I state that more people die from "fist fights than shootings." Strawman argument. 

In my comment I provided a link that included sources for the data affirming what I said. Here is another one. 

The primary source is the FBI UCR on homicides, not suicides. Red herring fallacy on that one. 

Can you send me a primary source and not an article, please?

Same can be said by suffocation (hanging) and poison too. While guns make it easier, there are a multitude of ways people choose to take their own life. Take away access to one, there are plenty other ways that they will find. Stabbing or cutting. Jumping off a building or cliff. Drowning. What does suicide have to do with the basic argument over "gun control" measures?

How many of them wouldn't of done it without guns? so many of them would of not even tried to kill themselves in the first place if not for the efficiency of a gun.

No, we do not. The problem is a lack of personal responsibility, accountability and discipline when it comes to weapons. You know, all those things that were taught by fathers to their sons, or to young boys and men as a Cub/Boy/Eagle Scout. When you stop teaching these things, what we see today with the gun problems is a result of just that. Not to mention the added issue of mental health which compounds the problem 10 fold. 

So a cultural problem? why is it that Americans have a lack of personal accountability and discipline with guns while Swiss don't? genetics? evidently its culture.

A plastic knife can be just as deadly as a spoon when used effectively. 

Children today should not be around guns until such age they can demonstrate respect for the weapon and personal responsibility with it as well. 

Parents who buy guns (or help them) for their deranged child are also a part of the problem. 

You're correct. I can kill someone with a car, even a plastic bag. The big symmetry breaker between a gun and these utilities is what we would call, "primary usage" the intent, purpose, and function and goal of a gun is simply to murder. There is objective utility and societal viability for plastic bags and cars outside of murder weapons and enjoyment. Guns? not so much.

When I went to high school, we drove trucks with rifles hanging in the back window. We didn't have school shootings. What changed? Liberals giving too much freedom and less personal responsibility upon the individual.

It seems we agree then, that it isn't necessarily the gun which is the issue but the user. Yet Americas gun crazy culture is part of why the gun problem exists.

When I went to high school, we drove trucks with rifles hanging in the back window. We didn't have school shootings. What changed? Liberals giving too much freedom and less personal responsibility upon the individual.

90% if Americans are on edge around cops because they holster guns. When you get pulled over, its daunting enough even in Europe but in America its going to be  scarier because of guns.

Added08.05.22 01:20AM

-->@TWS1405

I have no idea where you got the "stats" that more people die in America from fist fights than shootings. Please cite a source. How many people kill themselves with their own fists? And how many people kill themselves with guns that wouldn't have died without access to firearms?

It's such a shame that hundreds of thousands of Americans kill themselves with guns every year.

It's such a shame you're always scared around cops because they holster guns.

It's a damn shame that your children have to do drills on how to evacuate in case of a deranged shooter coming to their schools.

America has a massive cultural problem when it comes to guns, which only exist in America.

If a child cannot handle something responsibility you take it away. Swiss people don't go around killing people with their guns, so there's no reason for there to be discussions on how to supress said guns, unlike America. If a child cannot use a real knife properly to cut their beef, you give them a plastic one.

Added08.04.22 09:35PM

-->@TWS1405

Wow...one superfluous retort after another whining about semantics and delivery but never addressing the fact-based data in and of itself.

“nuh-uh”  Assertion - also false. If you take a look at my posts - I actually go through and detail all the “fact based data”

Given that you are now resorting to name calling and  bald assertions - I will work under the assumption that you have capitulated on the entire argument.

Simple question: do a tiny, small % of black males in America commit over 50% of the entire nation's homicides/murders and non-negligent manslaughters or not?

Obvious answer: yes. 

Do blacks kill 2x as many whites every year, yes or no?

Obvious answer: yes. 

Since a tiny, small % of black makes are committing more violent crimes than whites, both intraracially and interracially.

Yes - but no one js denying this. I’m not denying it. Leftists aren’t denying it. Democrats aren’t denying it.

and the entirety of the LEFT, DEMOCRATS and DENIALIST BLACKS are unwilling to accept this fact.

I’m a leftist - I accept it. I know of no democrat or leftist that doesn’t accept it. This is a false premise.

however you slice and dice it (attributable to, linked to, fact based criminological data, etc.)... is my point. 

But it’s a false point. No one rejects the data - this is literally the first part of my response to you. Are you unable to actually my address why this premise is wrong - or are you just going to repeat the same faulty claims?

As a result, when these fact based truths are mentioned, even lightly, you get reported by the leftist denialists and then banned from the social media platforms for "discrimination" via "hate speech and symbols." 

End of story. 

Actually, as I have argued and presented in the posts above: the issue isn’t that your describing data - it’s that you’re making value statements based on it, such as:

There are no historical references to whites bitching and moaning about their enslavement.

They're not born immoral, but they are certainly taught to be.

It is a foregone conclusion that black communities with high crime rates know exactly what is happening, but they are just too chicken sh!t to do anything about it.

lack of a proper upbringing by the single parent, lack of discipline, and lack of the sense and importance of taking personal responsibility and accountability for their choices and actions. 

They need to learn discipline, respect, and the importance of taking personal responsibility and accountability for their choices and actions - and understand the consequences of any bad choices and actions they make. 

Before civil rights black Americans had pride, self-respect, and determination to succeed in America

Blacks wanted to succeed then, but after civil rights, everything changed

Black culture is the problem that fuels crime, abuse, rape, murder, poor parenting, drug use, gangs, so on and so forth

More like mass paranoia and psychosis of the victimhood mentality hammered into their heads generation after generation is the true inherent problem. 

In fact, blacks in the Caribbean and South America do not act/behave as black American’s do precisely because they do not have the level of freedoms and luxuries that blacks in America have

The difference is the culture. Any measure of success among those in the black community was frowned upon

What is are the low standards some people have for themselves and others that makes the choice for them easier to consume illegal drugs.

All of these employ either explicit or implicit negative value statements about blacks - it’s value statements that change “facts” to “racism”

In addition, you’re frequently super sloppy in your language, either Freudian, or accidental when you say stuff like: 

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

And when I present the data that proves them wrong, they refuse to accept such data could be attributable to blacks in America,

The data across all interrelated relative areas, clearly demonstrate black males are far more of a problem for America than what the left claims.

Where you cast your net fat too widely to present blacks or black males as the problem. If your language often applies to blacks in general - why is it unreasonable to presume you’re talking about blacks  in general?

Finally, and probably more relevant to the conversation - you seem utterly and totally fixated with bombarding everyone, non stop, constantly, repeatedly, without cease - solely negative statistics about a given race - you are uninterested in context, uninterested in attribution, explanation, and discussion or causes or biases or prejudice in the data. 

You are, unabashedly, systematically, and apparently indefatigably dedicated - not to discussion, or intellectual debate, or exploration of data - but to bombard everyone with your thoughts about how big a problem black crime statistics, black culture, and blacks not taking responsibility  is.

Why on gods green earth could anyone imagine that such a single and dedicated focus on yelling at everyone about how bad all this crime and social data is for black people - would not come away with the sense that you probably didn’t have a great opinion of black people.

That behaviour is instructive - the lack of your willingness to explore or navigate the data, is also instructive; that your posts are solely about trying to convey negative data about blacks without caveat or discussion - is absolutely instructive.

That’s almost certainly what you were banned, and given all the issues above, which I have explained at length and you have mostly dismissed - the specific conclusion that this behaviour, and these statements are racist - is not a wholly unreasonable one.

PS. I am NOT going to repeat myself proving you wrong, ove rand over again.

But you’re not. As I’ve explained, the bulk of your responses are poorly reasoned “nuh-uh”, in your last response on your links you appeared to give up all pretext of argument and simply insisted I was wrong without explanation on almost every link.

As shown; the remainder of your posts are poorly thought out, inconsistent with the data or just plain illogical.

This is clearly an issue of you capitulating - unable to answer any of the points, and are going through this weird denial phase where you pretend nothing I’ve said actually exists.

Perhaps if you spent more time explaining why I’m wrong rather than telling me you have 400 books, you would fare better. 

-->@TWS1405

"...the recent FBI data revealed five times as many deaths are caused by knives than guns according to a recent Breitbart News article."

FBI: Knives Are Five Times Deadlier Than Guns - Firearms News

Knife vs Handgun - Reality Check 

FBI UCR Data shows more people die every single year by "hands, fists and feet" than they do by "rifle" of ANY kind. 

guns are harder to get access to than knives and fists. It's not about how many people die from guns in total, it's about how much more effective guns are at killing a person than knives. Sure, a knife can kill a person at close range, but a gun can kill a person from a hundred feet away, and then quickly aim at the next person, without having to chase them down.

Comparing a "bomb" to a "gun" is a false equivalency fallacy.

I'm not saying bombs and guns are the same thing. What I AM saying is that guns are more effective at killing people than knives. I'm providing an example - in this case bombs - in which a weapon isn't legal because it is more effective at killing people than knives. If we ban guns, people will find other ways to kill people, but not as effectively as they would with guns.

Guns are merely a tool but guns can kill people far more effectively than things like knives. Unless someone is very proficient at knife throwing and has a large supply of knives, they aren't gonna be able to kill more than one person every ten seconds (unless they're just standing there and tightly packed together). On the other hand, assault rifles (and guns in general to a lesser extent) can kill one person every other second, more if the people are tightly packed together. Why do we ban bombs? They are "merely" tools, but they are far more effective at killing than a knife. The same goes for guns.

No one knows exactly what causes gender dysphoria. Some experts believe that hormones in the womb, genes, and cultural and environmental factors may be involved. I think that in the future, scientists will find that it is due to damaged pathways in the brain (brain lesions).

One of my best friends who was an athlete and a weight lifter was gay. He ended up committing suicide.

AR 15s protect you from gangs

Gang violence would be less prominent if guns were banned.

No one want's to see those in that video procreating. No one.

Except themselves and their families and friends. 

And I doubt that most reasonable people would deny them them the right to procreate.

So you assuming to represent the views of everyone, is a tad arrogant to say the least.

Perhaps you think that you are somehow perfect.

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?

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?

FactCheck: do black Americans commit more crime? – Channel 4 News

African-American Men Represent 6% of the Population, but Commit 52% of the Murders in the United States. | by Publius Americanus | Les Deplorables | Medium

100 Black Crime Statistics: Data, Trends & Predictions | CompareCamp.com

Blacks Overrepresented in Violent Crime Arrests: BJS - The Crime Report

Again, my contention is NOT against your alleged statistics.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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

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?

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?

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. 

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.

No, I am not.

Yes, you are.

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.

that subset needs to be described just like a suspect in an APB needs to be described.

Again, not even remotely analogous.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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"?

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.

“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.
 

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.
 

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.”
 

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?”
 

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.
 

I don’t see how anyone can support smash and dash when the female gets pregnant.  Men should not smash and dash and they should be prosecuted if they do and forced to pay all the child support they owe.

Having a one-night stand has nothing to do with that which isn't even in existence, let alone even a question of fact. 

If the person you have a one night stand gets pregnant, do you support the right to ditch her?  No.  Why?  Because the dad created a human being.  Hold the female to the same standard.

@TWS1405

I have not tried to qualify any criminality "by one's so-called 'race'". 

This:

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

And this:

The data across all interrelated relative areas, clearly demonstrate black males are far more of a problem for America than what the left claims.

would suggest otherwise.

And when I present the data that proves them wrong, they refuse to accept such data could be attributable to blacks in America,

You're only reinforcing my previous point:

falsely claiming it whites and then calling me a racist for even putting for that fact-based truth.

Your being a racist or not is irrelevant. The conclusions you render from your interpretations of "the data" is relevant. That is the focus of my scrutiny.

When conservative blacks bring forth the same positions I have, they get called names and accused of being in black face for white supremacy. It's a joke. 

What does this have to do with anything?

Clearly you didn't click the link and educate yourself. *sigh*

Clearly, I did. I'm well aware of Thomas Sowell--having written several papers on his findings while I was at university--and I actually do own a copy of Black Rednecks and White Liberals. But I did not ask Thomas Sowell what "black culture" was. I asked you, since you're both the author of this thread and the instigator of the subject's discussion. In your words, what is "black culture"?

There’s two elements to my argument that the data doesn’t support your conclusions.

The first is that you’re drawing causal conclusions, and making a number of value statements that aren’t supported by the data you’re holding up; and your making broad value judgements that clearly aren’t part of the data sets you use. This is 95% of my argument above, and is pointing errors in your logical errors on your argument and reasoning.  As such, for these, data citations aren’t relevant.

I do cite specific statistics (but don’t link a source) that whites also have access to the same welfare, that mass incarceration began in the mid 1970s, crime rates have massive dropped since the 90s, that black out of wedlock births are at a peak of 72% today but wasn’t in 1975, and that white out of wedlock births are at about the same level today as blacks in the late 1960s. These should be relatively uncontroversial pieces of data, no? 

There are broad correlations in unemployment, poverty, welfare, incarceration rates, and a few others, with rise of single family homes. That’s the data. Your reply is inferring causation from that correlation, and then completely speculating an underlying cause; it’s not even a particularly good inference; given man in the house rules (which forced unwed women to not have a man in the house) were state level, and ended in 68; and that the welfare rules otherwise didn’t promote fatherlessness as much as promoting not getting married (rules for married couples, and rules for unmarried or unrelated individuals were different), and would not necessarily have had little impact on people already unwed. So this assessment seems largely speculative, driven by correlation = causation.
 

 
Ignoring all the huge variety of specific economic factors here; it doesn’t even make sense with respect to what you said mere sentences before:
 
You stated, that black people in the 1960s had strong families, had pride, wanted to be successful, and had determination - despite being victims of racism; but this assessment is very much at odds with the suggestion that these exact same people would happily give up, break up their families, and live on handouts when offered. So it seems your argument doesn’t fully believe in the positive attributes you assigned to blacks in the 1960s; given that your follow up implies they leapt at the opportunity for handouts, and instead serve only to imply negative attributes in blacks today.
 

I can follow up, the same welfare was also available to whites up for arguably longer; who also had stable families structure - one set of stable families with pride and determination deteriorate into mass incarceration because of welfare but the others didn’t?
 

 
These sort of statistical comparison shows that the data you’re using is incomplete given the conclusion - or your conclusion is inherently based on an inherent bias that somehow one is better at dealing with things than others.
 

You’re right - crack is a drug, using drugs is a choice. However - social trends are clear, poverty and economic factors are indeed associated with high level of drug use, and substance abuse - so redlining, and racial inequality raised unemployment and increases poverty disproportionately in black communities; that alone puts those communities at higher risk for substance abuse.
 

When a new, super cheap drug, comes out on the market, and is sold to them; it’s reasonable to expect areas with higher unemployment and economic hardship to be worst affected.
 

Imagine, if instead of that; opioid abuse is viewed as a crime problem, painted as criminals that were damaging the country - laws were changed to make inordinately steep penalties for possession or supply of opioids were meted out, and three strikes policy means that you could go to prison for decades for it. In locales with high poverty and high drug use - this would destroy families, increase poverty more, increase police involvement, increase arrests, and lead to overwhelming mass incarceration - for a health problem.
 

 
 
ME: “Mass incarceration was a direct result of the 72% out of wedlock birth rates leading to the home to prison pipeline. The family structure was already collapsed prior to incarceration due to the lack of a nuclear family.
 
Mass incarceration began in the mid 1970s, this is when incarceration went from stable, and began increasing. The 72% out of wedlock number has only been hit in the last decade. Kids born out of wedlock did get a bit worse, but actually collapsed in the mid 1970s, coinciding with mass incarceration and obviously. The wedlock birthrates for all races today are at all time lows -
 

This is what I mean by cherry picking - you’re only using the data that confirms the prejudicial conclusion you wish to make; when you look more broadly at wider data to support the correlation - the correlation falls apart.
 

 
Given that you’ve blamed the problem on “lbj”, black mothers wedding the government the collapse of the black nuclear family - despite no causal correlation - you’re now going for black culture. This doesn’t seem to be a coherent position, more than you’re flitting around a bunch of things that you haven’t really thought through.
 

 
Which black culture exactly - can you define and measure it? starting when and where? Can you correlate crime trends with the rise and prevalence of black culture - what statistics support this claim? Given that you’re claiming all this started happening before mass incarceration - before any of what is often pointed to as “black culture” was around, and that violent crime rates have halved despite there being some growth (especially in media and social media), of various black cultures that are widely criticized. This doesn’t really correlate, and is not something fact based.
 

ME - Also, there is no racial skew in crime statistics.
This is factually untrue - ironic given that this post is about rejection of facts.
 

 
Of the top of my head…
 

 
As shown, you’ve used sloppy logic, poor correlations, and partial cherry picked data sets to draw conclusion that you then used to make a huge number of broad value statements about a given race that is not - at any point - clearly supported by any data you presented.
 

What is so-called "Black Culture"?

Perhaps, "many," have gleaned from your attempt to qualify criminality by one's so-called "race" as a platitude, which attempts to ascribe a pathological property to the demographics who bear your concern.

My post is based on your words: “white guilt liberals and democrats deny these [crime stat] truths”. That’s the premise of the post title, and the central theme of the op. That is indeed your premise - both explicit and implicit, your reply here is underpinned by it, your original post stated it. And it’s inherently untrue as I outlined.

 

Data doesn’t generally lie. Data is just data. Interpretation of the data, the choice of datasets you include, the conclusions and causal links inferred from them, and the value judgements you make, and the tone you use when conveying them - those lie. Those can lie an awful lot.

And this is the issue, you seem to be unable to draw a distinction between the data you are using, and all the things you’re piling onto it. Your argument here appears to treat those both as the same thing - that if the data is accurate, then your speculative assertions about cause, the implicit value judgements you appear to be baking in with all the negative tone and language - are also accurate and valid. They are not.

Sure, the data is largely - but not entirely accurate - no one contests that a great deal. But what you’re concluding from it, the subtle negative blame laden language, and other subtleties - that’s all from you, not from the data.

 

Racism, broadly speaking, is the belief or opinion that one race is inferior to another in some respect.

 

White supremacy, broadly speaking, is where racism is used in some fashion to justify specific racist policy and dominance of white people. That’s my own words, it doesn’t catch everything - but it’s what I mean when I am talking about racism and white supremacy in this context.

 

Now, your issue is the same as before - you keep conflating the validity of data with the validity of the opinions you inelegantly draw from it.

 

In this respect, you can indeed show the “truth” of some statistic or data point - and draw racist or white supremacist conclusions from it by injecting a bunch of value inferences that don’t appear in that data point.

 

If this is really what you believe, do you support smash and dash if a fetus isn’t a human being?

School systems should include LBTQ+ topics in their history and sex education

I think your forgetting that women have bodily autonomy for many things involving their body parts. If she wants to treat her body (ergo her organs) like crap by smoking and/or drugs, she might as well be disposing her organs. She can have parts of her organs removed in medical procedures for health reasons or vanity (cosmetic surgery).

The distinction that I make is the zygote is half the DNA of the father and the mother. Therefore, the organism is not the mother even though it is inextricable from her body. It would be inaccurate to call the zygote her body.

The phrase "To be a human being is to be a person" is a tautology. If the argument is a person is an individual not subsistent on another, then the term can used for legal scrutiny. However, the argument is not the recognition of law.

A zygote is the beginning of a new life. Since a zygote is related to the development of a human life, it deserves to placed under the scrutiny of human morality, which supersedes the law. Human life is sacred. Life should be respected for being life and have the right to life. If you purport that the zygote or fetus is like a cancer or parasite attached to the women's body, then your foolish because it is human life. (question to TWS1405) How do pro-choice people justify having a stance against life?

(For anyone reading) How do liberals justify abortion when they have a ironic pro-life stance on animals and a conservationist stance on nature?