Total posts: 469
Posted in:
USERS
Ragnar
Oromagi
Blamonkey
DEBATES
Legalized Abortion
Resolved: The US should institute congressional term limits
Created:
Posted in:
PC's are the best, but if I had to choose between the consoles I would go with the ps5. Despite this, I am unenthused by both consoles.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Also, our sources definitely used different methods. Hawaii in my source had a cost of living which was just 18.8% higher than the US average.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
How are you a Democrat? Aren't you from Canada? lol
I mean that I support them, I can't vote for them though. BIDEN 2020
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I found a list looking at median income adjusted for cost of living disparities. [HERE]
If a state has ever swapped hands from 2000 to 2016 in the us federal election I put it as a tossup. I made an exception for Indiana and New Mexico though.
Alaska Real income: $69,465 [R]
Maryland Real income: $69,203 [D]
New Hampshire Real income: $66,955 [Toss]
Massachusetts Real income: $66,069 [D]
Connecticut Real income: $65,636 [D]
North Dakota Real income: $65,609 [R]
Minnesota Real income: $65,183 [D]
Utah Real income: $64,858 [R]
Virginia Real income: $64,646 [Toss]
District of Columbia Real income: $64,639 [D]
New Jersey Real income: $63,688 [D]
Wyoming Real income: $62,593 [R]
Colorado Real income: $61,927 [D]
Hawaii Real income: $61,857 [D]
Washington Real income: $61,192 [D]
Delaware Real income: $61,011 [D]
Nebraska Real income: $60,702 [R]
Iowa Real income: $60,616 [Toss]
South Dakota Real income: $60,110 [R]
Illinois Real income: $59,767 [D]
Wisconsin Real income: $59,762 [Toss]
Kansas Real income: $59,631 [R]
Rhode Island Real income: $58,838 [D]
Texas Real income: $57,493 [R]
Ohio Real income: $57,259 [Toss]
====================================== Everything Above is the Upper Half [R] -- 8 [D] -- 12 [Toss] -- 5
====================================== Everything Below this the Lower Half [R] -- 16 [D] -- 6 [Toss] -- 4
Pennsylvania Real income: $56,897 [Toss]
California Real income: $56,878 [D]
Missouri Real income: $56,258 [R]
Vermont Real income: $56,093 [D]
Indiana Real income: $55,713 [R]
Georgia Real income: $55,339 [R]
Michigan Real income: $54,635 [Toss]
Oregon Real income: $54,585 [D]
Oklahoma Real income: $54,024 [R]
Nevada Real income: $53,501 [Toss]
Arizona Real income: $53,526 [R]
New York Real income: $52,775 [D]
Tennessee Real income: $52,586 [R]
Maine Real income: $52,545 [D]
North Carolina Real income: $52,445 [Toss]
South Carolina Real income: $52,312 [R]
Montana Real income: $52,225 [R]
Idaho Real income: $51,686 [R]
Alabama Real income: $51,573 [R]
Kentucky Real income: $51,033 [R]
Louisiana Real income: $50,471 [R]
Florida Real income: $49,674 [R]
New Mexico Real income: $48,074 [D]
Arkansas Real income: $48,049 [R]
Mississippi Real income: $47,092 [R]
West Virginia Real income: $47,265 [R]
As a democrat it I would not jump to this to make the point that republican states are worse then democrat states, however it most definitely doesn't support the notion that republican states outperforming democrat states.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
Christopher best has a good taste in video games and is an excellent debater.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
But anyways I’m not going to argue this with you anymore. There are way too many factors involved for anyone to accurately gauge systematic racism. Racism is and has been on a decline since the 60s. Eventually it’ll likely be gone. These things take time.
Okay, that's fine I guess. All I'll say is it seems like my opposition on this thread has been hypercritical of my data with constant speculation about potential flaws without offering any counter evidence of their own. 'Twas fun anyway.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
I did point the flaw. Not all the studies account for the same factors. They don’t account for other factors as well. You need to provide the methodology of the meta analysis study, cause if there’s no discrepancy between a white cop shooting a black man and black cop shooting a black man then there is no systematic racism.
Basically every meta analysis I've seen has controlled for the methodology of the studies used in the meta analysis. For instance in this case my meta analysis stated that all studies must have "sufficient information to calculate effect sizes for at least one operationalization of shooter bias was included in the paper."
Also, if black cops shoot black men a lot that doesn't debunk systemic racism. Just because judges tend to be male for instance doesn't mean that there isn't any sexism in the courts against men.
Does your study provide the races of the participants?
I didn't find anything, best I could do was find the total number of participants(3427).
I never added anything. Your study did. Systematic racism implies action based on race and race alone which your study doesn’t support as half of the black population will get a smaller sentence than half of the white population when it should be white getting less in all situations or at least a vast majority.
The way you tried to debunk systemic racism was by comparing black women to white men, that means the variable of sex is now not being accounted for. But if you compare apples to apples then black people are 20.4% worse off. Also, it's not just race alone, that's why the study accounted for things like age, education, citizenship, weapon possession and prior criminal history. We want to see if race plays some role, and the facts suggest it does.
You’re missing the point lol. In a black neighborhood, both white and black cops are more likely to suspect black people than white people. It’s the same if the neighborhood was white — they’re more likely to suspect white people. The majority of cop interactions were with black people because black people commit the most crime disproportionately.
Sure, this is why we examine the data in proportion to their criminality.(Not quite sure what you're getting at)
The vast majority of cops don’t go out every just looking for black people to catch and arrest. Facts depend on environment. If in my area black people are more likely to commit crime, I’m going to stop more black people than white people and I’m going to search more black people than white people. Consequently there are going to be more cases where searches on blacks don’t result in anything because I searched more blacks in the process.
I'm not saying cops are trying to be racist, I'm just saying that they have subtle biases that should be recognized and that these biases are born out in basically every piece of data I see. Also, I think stopping black people more isn't racist but stopping them more in proportion to the amount of crime they commit is racist. Say that in this Area 40% of all crime was committed by black people, well then if 40% of the people I pull over are black then we will see no bias against black people. But if I pull over 60% black people then that is racist. We observe black people getting pulled over more in proportion too the crime they commit.(Also not quite sure what you're getting at)
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Pedigrees are not proof of an argument. Get better proof.
We should rely on criminologists to talk about crime.
We should rely on scientists to talk about science.
We should rely on economists to talk about economics.
They are the best people in their respective field so yes I will trust them.
That's an argument from authority to say "academics believe x"
True, but it's not a fallacious appeal to authority.
Get better proof.
I've offered you the largest most comprehensive pieces of data that I could find.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
That's a genetic/neurochemical argument, which I thought you had dropped earlier in this thread.
I thought you meant like race realism stuff(that's why when you first asked this question I talked about race genetically). Obviously humans are genetically tribal.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol, science isn't about popular consensus. If that was the case then angels would exist. I guess we are done here.
No, it's about the consensus of scientists themselves not people in general.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Covert systemic racism in a nation with less than 1000 KKK is such an implausible concept, you are simply going to need better proof.
Here's the thing, systemic racism doesn't require evil racists happily arresting minorities, all it requires is people to have implicit biases. Plus I think a near total academic consensus is good enough proof.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Did they account for plea bargains? And yes it is. You’re putting forth the study, so you’re accountable for it. If it doesn’t account for something to your knowledge then it’s a misleading study.
I just looked, they don't account for plea agreements BUT systemic racism in plea deals has also been observed. So this further shows the bias of the courts.
Also they didn't include this factor because ..."" the Commission had no data regarding which offenders were offered the opportunity to accept a plea bargain but declined.""
Again we have to work off of what data is avalible to form the best and most objective opinion possible.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
It was a meta-analyzed study time begin with. How many of the participants were black? How many were white? Do black cops shoot black people at the same rates as whites? As I mentioned, there are a plethora of factors involved which studies don’t account for especially since this study was meta analyzed.
Well this was comprised of 42 separate studies that I don't honestly feel like analyzing in depth individually. A meta analysis though will generally be rather large as it seek to form a consensus amongst academics. I feel like this is a rather unfair burden to place on me, I think after I provide the data it's on you to find a flaw in it, not on me to account for potential flaws that may or may not exist.
But systematic racism isn’t a problem because black women don’t get longer sentences than white males. If systematic racism existed black women would have longer sentences than white males. Your problem here is systematic sexism not racism. The evidence points to the former not the latter.
Your adding the variable of gender, if you isolate for race then we see a bias. Meaning that in order to debunk systemic racism you need to add in external factors.
From the first control F search: “therefore, when possible, we exclude non-discretionary searches, such as vehicle impound searches and searches incident to arrest.” So no, they don’t factor in arrests.
I never said they did factor in arrests, I said they accounted for how likely a race is commit a crime.
And even then, they don’t mention violent crime. Having contraband isn’t a violent crime. Not to mention the study was conducted in a limited environment. Of course the search rate for blacks is going to be higher in black neighborhoods. As I said, there are factors that each study ignores because there are simply too many variables in a determination. Factor in that each case is different irl and in a controlled environment, you get significant discrepancies.
Limited environment? it was conducted across the entire country. Also, why is the search rate going to be higher if they are just as likely to carry contraband. Also, obviously it is impossible to fully account for all variables but this is the single best piece of data we have, an analysis of 95 million police stops is bound to have one blemishes, but all we can do is work off of the data available, and it seems like almost all researchers come to the conclusion that systemic racism is present in law enforcement. Also, keep in mind that this is not an appeal to authority fallacy as I'm appealing to experts in the field.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
You’re the one claiming systematic racism exists. It’s your job to prove why the study you show demonstrates. If there’s no proof that they didn’t account for the factors Greyparrot mentions then your study is inherently flawed especially if you agree those factors can cause bias.
I did show that my study accounted for criminal history, grey just thought that they may have accounted for it improperly. It's not on me to show that the study calculated something correctly.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol, no it is not. Saying unicorns exist would be more compelling than this obviously biased study.It's absolutely impossible to account for plea deals since there is no record of the smaller crimes.Show us the methodology, or not. Until then, believe in your unicorns.
I'm just following the facts available, I admit that I have to offer evidence for systemic racism. But if there is a problem with my data you have to be the one to offer evidence a flaw. If I said that "these studies say they account for age but what if they're lying" I would need to prove that they lied obviously. If this is your contention at this point then that's fine, but your point is rather unpersuasive.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yeah, "trust me" isn't going to sway me.
The onus is on you to prove they messed it up somehow.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Direct me to this or not. I don't care. Simply stating general terms isn't sufficient for me.
I did direct you to it in post 15. I am unsure of how they accounted for it, but they accounted for it nonetheless.
""Also, the Commission has collected data about an additional variable—violence in an offender’s criminal history—that the Commission had previously noted was missing from its analysis but that might help explain some of the differences in sentencing noted in its work.""
how does the study account for repeat offenders and mandatory sentencing laws? It's a vital question. Just claiming you did with no details doesn't mean anything. It's just someone's opinion at that point.
I think it's fair to assume the researchers accounted for it correctly and they didn't mess it up somehow. how am I to prove to you that they accounted for it in the correct way?? I think the onus is on you to show how they didn't account for it correctly.
Let's see the before and after data. The methodology matters.
All I know is what the study says, which it states that they accounted for prior criminal history and the gap shrunk but persisted.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
And how many of those black men had weapons? It’s seems as though every time you point to a study it leaves out a key aspect of what causes the shootings in the first place.
This is the same study in post 1, look at the titles. The study clearly states ""Our results indicated that relative to White targets, participants were quicker to shoot armed Black targets (dav = −.13, 95% CI [−.19, −.06]), slower to not shoot unarmed Black targets (dav = .11, 95% CI [.05, .18)."" even when controlling for whether they were armed or not the gap persisted.
You’re just proving my point. The case for systematic sexism against men is much much stronger than systematic racism against blacks. So why is systematic sexism not as big of a problem to you? Every court case is a case by case basis. Women are more likely to be given the benefit of the doubt because they care for children which is a common tactic used in pleading sentences. There are just so many other factors that contribute to the decisions of sentencing.
Systemic sexism is a big problem for me, but so is systemic racism....
Yes they would and they are. There’s no mention of any talk of disproportionate crime. If anything, it’s common sense police interactions are higher with black people. Black people are more likely to get shot because they are more likely to have a weapon. All of this matters. Cops are killed by black males 18x or something like that than vice versa and that’s including justified shootings.
They do look at the odds that they did something illegal. If you read the full study you'll see it state that the 'hit rate' for contraband was accounted for, use crtl f 'hit rate' if you wish. Even with the hit and search rate accounted for, racism is still detected.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's not so clear. I did a ctrl-f for the word repeat or repeat offender with no hits. No mention of the 3 strike laws.
It clearly states...
""Also, the Commission has collected data about an additional variable—violence in an offender’s criminal history—that the Commission had previously noted was missing from its analysis but that might help explain some of the differences in sentencing noted in its work.""
They accounted for this, they even updated their statistics later on to account for it. The bias persisted.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
African Americans disproportionately commit more crime. Police shootings generally occur in areas where the black population is high. Systematic racism would imply cops are shooting black people in disproportionately white areas.
They are shooting them more in disproportionately white areas, even when accounting for the percentage of nonwhite citizens the false alarm rate, shooting sensitivity or reaction time for no gun trials. I will admit that accounting for this did reduce the shooting threshold gap by a lot.
The study also found that women of all colors were less likely to be sentenced longer compared to white men. So is there institutional sexism as well? If there was systematic racism, blacks, whether male or female would have higher sentences than white people. At best your data is inconclusive because it points to both sides.
There is systemic sexism and basically all of the data I've seen suggests that the disparity between the sexes in the courts are far greater than the disparity between the races. Also, if the study is inconclusive why did they say ""The Commission found that sentence length continues to be associated with some demographic factors, in particular race and gender"" in their conclusion? This quote states that race was at least playing some part, that was the end finding, they certainly weren't unsure if race played a role or not.
Black people disproportionately commit more crime than whites especially against other blacks. Obviously police encounters are higher for black people because black on black crime is the highest by a mile. Crime statistically occurs more in the day especially in big cities. The night is generally when violent offenses take place and even then black people disproportionately commit it.
When I say African Americans are discriminated against I mean that they are discriminated against in proportion to the amount of crime they commit. Just think about it, do you believe that a massive analysis like this would leave out such a clear and powerful factor?
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
the sentence disparity is way worse for men and most blacks sentenced isnt their first time
Very true, the courts are also veeerrrry sexist. I would say that the systemic racism against men in law enforcement is a much bigger problem than most realize.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Did you factor in the repeat offender laws? Because sometimes the judges don't have a choice.
Yep, the study clearly states it accounts for "prior criminal history." I pointed this out in post #1.
Also, if people are assuming that black people all have saggy pants, and as a result African Americans are discriminated against then that is systemic racism.That might be a problem of racism from the individuals who are not police officers assuming things then.
Well when I said "people" in the original post I was referring to police officers, but yes other people make racist assumptions as well...
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I think the terminology you are stretching for is the systemic profiling of problematic cultures.
Nope, I think the sentencing point shows how people are getting way longer sentences purely because of race, how would cultural profiling impact a judges sentencing if all other factors barring race have been accounted for?
Occams razor surely applies here. The police go where the crime is, and not all blacks wear saggy pants and run in a gang. It just might appear that way to someone who has never been trained to go where the crime is.
Of course police go where the crime is...this doesn't change the fact that when isolating for race we see disparities. Also, if people are assuming that black people all have saggy pants, and as a result African Americans are discriminated against then that is systemic racism.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Perhaps you can drop the misleading term race then and focus on the cultural biases instead.
Just because race is not genetically real does not mean that it is not perceived as real in our society.
Surely you do not think all cultures are equally prone to rates of criminality?
I agree, there are certain cultures that undeniably lead to more crime and violence. This does not debunk systemic racism though.
Occams razor suggests the police simply go where the crime is, rather than being involved in an elaborate covert conspiracy to purify the gene pool being secretly trained to filter out "bad DNA."
It's not about a grand conspiracy, rather we can detect differences in the way judges and police officers treat black people. Most police officers are fine people that certainly don't want to "purify the gene pool", but the data suggests that they are indeed biased against African Americans, that's all.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Do you think there is an actual genetic argument to be made here?
I am pretty sure most academics don't even believe in race genetically so I doubt it. Even if it does happen to play a part somehow, I doubt it is a significant factor.
Created:
Hello, I am a believer in systemic racism, feel free to change my mind.
Police Shootings
This is one where it’s a little iffy, but there probably is some disparity.
For one, the data is not all pointing in one direction. This study suggests that there is no bias in police shootings for instance. However, forming your opinions off of individual studies when there are massive meta analyses to work off of is rather faulty. If we look at an analysis of 42 studies, there is clearly bias against African Americans in police shootings. This held up for both armed and unarmed criminals.
Police Stops
I think this one is pretty clear, an analysis of 95 million police stops demonstrated that African Americans were pulled over significantly more than white people. The researchers further found that the disparity shrunk at night time, supposedly this is because it is harder to identify the race of a driver at night.
Sentencing
Even after controlling for age, education, citizenship, weapon possession and prior criminal history among other things, racial disparities still exist in sentencing. To be specific, the study found that black people were sentenced 20.4 percent longer relative to white people in similar situations.
What this Means
It is rather important not to shame any race for being advantaged in some way, it really accomplishes nothing. Instead we should try to fix these issues one at a time, first though I think we should try to acknowledge that these issues are real and meaningful.
Feel free to attack any one of the points I presented, please stay civil though. : )
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I love Trent's debate style. It's like let's take two pages from an almanac and analyze. Short, sweet, and very CIA.
Thank you Oro!!! I too enjoy the structured and orderly arguments you present in your discussions. : )
Created:
Posted in:
California: -2 points
Urban: -1 points
Suburban: 0 points
Rural: 2 points
Where did your family come from?
A different country than the one I'm currently living in: -1 point
A different state/province/region than the one I'm currently living in: 0 points
The same state/province/region: 1 point
The exact same area. All four of my grandparents grew up within fifty miles of where I currently live: 2 points
What proportion of your extended family lives within an hour from you?
None: -1 point
Less than 25%: 0 points
Between 25% and 50%: 1 point
More than half: 2 points
Do you have a regional accent?
No: -1 point
Yes, slight: 0 points
Yes, recognizably so: 1 point
Yes, and people who speak my native language from different parts of the country can barely understand me: 2 points
How often do you attend religious services?
Never: -1 point
Annually: 0 points
Once a month: 1 point
Once a week or more: 2 points
Do you come from a religious tradition?
Yes, but no longer practice: -2 points
No, and not a convert to any religion: -1 points
No, but converted to a religion: 0 points
Yes, still practice: 1 point
Yes, still practice with my family at the same church I went to as a child: 2 points
How many children do you have or plan to have?
Zero: -1 point
One: 0 points // Not really sure. so I'll do the neutral option.
Two: 1 point
Three or more: 2 points
What is your occupation?
Officer worker/white collar: -1 point? //No job.
Blue collar: 0 points
Skilled tradesman/stay at home mom: 1 point
Skilled trademan, doing the same job that my father did: 2 points
How well do you know your neighbors?
Don't know their names: -1 point
Have interacted with them on rare occasions: 0 points
First name basis: 1 point
Know you could depend on them in a survival situation: 2 points
If male, how often do you pee outside?
Never: -1 point
On hikes or trips to the woods: 0 points
Occasionally, especially when doing yard work: 1 point
The majority of the time: 2 points
Which circumstances best describe your significant other?
Grew up on opposite sides of the country/globe: -1 point // Don't have one.
Came from the same state, region, or province: 0 points
Share the same home town: 1 point
Share the same home town and religious tradition, families were acquainted before you got together: 2 points
Do you own any animals?
No: -1
Yes, but only pets: 0
Yes, livestock: 1
Yes, livestock, which are descended from my ancestors flock/herd: 2
Do you grow any of your own food?
No: -1
Yes, I have a small garden: 0
Yes, the majority of my property is dedicated to agriculture: 1
I'm literally a subsistence farmer: 2
-3
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Maybe the stall is caused by a decrease in GDP growth then.
No way bro. It couldn't possibly be something as nuanced and deep as that. : )
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Rumor has is that there is some sort of pandemic going on that may be affecting the world economy, but that is all just speculation.
These are figures from last year.
Created:
Posted in:
Seems rather hyperbolic. It is indeed fairly amusing, but there really isn't any substance here.
Created:
-->
@User_2006
More competition is always welcome in my books, Geely is the 15th largest car company and SAIC is 12th, still behind the U.S., Japan, and Western/Southern European car companies however. Hope they improve anyway.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
So I'm leading the rebellion...cool. I'ma suit up.
Created:
Do you think it's a conspiracy???
Created:
Posted in:
I think the minimum wage should be below $15 an hour for sure, but it should probably exist. The data suggests that it actually decreases earnings for minimum wage workers . But, it doesn't lower employment like many believe. Are there any studies that disagree?????
Created:
Posted in:
...IDK, no real substance here. I probably tilt toward his side but this a complicated issue with a lot of disagreement amongst economists.
""The balance of federal and local government support to address the economic impact of the crisis has thus far been tilted too much towards supporting firms rather than individuals.""
Economists said...
Agree 29%--Uncertain 50%--Disagree 18%
Created:
Posted in:
Very skinny, 5,10 and like 130-140 pounds. Never exercise or play sports.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
Is CIV 6 better than V
Not sure, I have a very limited experience with civ 5, all I can say is CIV 6 is a masterpiece.
HOI has recently stopped launching on my PC which is a bummer.
The biggest bummer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
Hearts of Iron 4 is an amazing game, stopped working when I got a new computer though, haven't been on since Waking the Tiger. I have definitely put 1000+ hours into THIS GAME,one of my files has 250 hours recorded on it. Recently though it's just been Donkey Kong country, CIV 6(playing as America), and Minecraft.
Created:
Posted in:
I vary a bit, sometimes i get right on economics, other times I get left. However, I'm a big libertarian on the social axis.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I gave two pro flat tax sources, one from Serbia, one from Russia. I thought you were talking about the Serbian one.
Russia has always been pseudo-left until it again became brutally capitalist.
Not really that capitalistic. It's 85th and 94th on the 2 prominent economic freedom indexes. Also, it does rather poorly on competitiveness indexes so it certainly values fairness more than brutality when compared to the developed world.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
No, it was compared to the existing Serbian income tax system.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
seems like it depends on the country.
http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/Article.aspx?ID=0013-32641190007R#.XwlTWudE0aE ===Shows inequality goes down.
https://www.diw.de/documents/dokumentenarchiv/17/60119/paperpaulus_peichl.pdf ====Shows increase in poverty.
A common trend I've noticed from the abstracts of the studies/analyses I've read is that a flat tax generally helps poorer nations more than wealthier ones, perhaps that's why the studies differ. I am unsure if it really harms the poor though.
In recent digging it also appears that a flat tax has harmed the Netherlands economically. Can't find the link again though.
In short, it seems like a flat tax can be improve productivity, economic equality, and revenue, however, it seems like it can depress these metrics of success as well in certain circumstances.
I say it's inconclusive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Your source of video is only authleft(communism/socialism).
if you ain't a tankie, your an extremist. REEEEEEE
Remember, equal rights, BLM and LGBTQ movements are still left, lib left I think.
bAsIcAllY fAsCiStS
Funny enough, I am also libcenter in the political compass test.
I am close to that.
Created:
Posted in:
Created: