Re: Progressives Gone Wild
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nick Danger
I'll tell you the #1 way to survive an encounter with the police, Flighty - don't be a criminal.
Barring that, there are still other ways. You can follow lawful orders from the officer. You can volunteer information instead of forcing him to drag it out of you. You can not reach for a weapon. You can make it clear that you have no intention of reaching for a weapon by keeping your hands in view. You can address the officer with respect instead of contempt. You can cooperate with the investigation.
There is absolutely no question that blacks have a harder time dealing with police than whites. Video of blacks behaving completely inappropriately during police encounters is all over the internet. One begins to wonder if it might not be a black cultural issue rather than a systemic racism issue when one views enough of these videos.
Regarding more black drivers being pulled over and searched, well, it seems like they're not going far enough with that at only 20% more. A random black person is in fact 8 times more likely to be a criminal than a random white person. Statistically. And I realize the popular liberal stance is that police should be handicapped by not being allowed to use statistics in their enforcement efforts. Why? Don't we all agree that less crime is a goal worth pursuing?
Your entire argument is built on circular reasoning. The police would not be harassing people unless they were doing something wrong. Therefore, anyone harassed (or worse) by police must have done something wrong.
You mean videos like the Rodney King beating? I guess must have he asked for it by not being sufficiently respectful.
I'm surprised you haven't taken your argument to it's logical conclusion. Why not just get rid of the presumption of innocence for black defendants? After all, they are statistically likely to be guilty.
Re: Progressives Gone Wild
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nick Danger
Regarding more black drivers being pulled over and searched, well, it seems like they're not going far enough with that at only 20% more. A random black person is in fact 8 times more likely to be a criminal than a random white person. Statistically. And I realize the popular liberal stance is that police should be handicapped by not being allowed to use statistics in their enforcement efforts. Why? Don't we all agree that less crime is a goal worth pursuing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nick Danger
What I am is anti-lockdown. Anti-mask, anti-travel restriction, anti-mandate. I don't care if millions of people die, hell, I don't care if BILLIONS of people die. There are 8 billion people on the planet, half of that would be objectively better. We've identified the at-risk demographic. They should be in quarantine and taking personal responsibility for their survival, letting the rest of us get on with life, it's their problem.
I should add that your attitude toward the rights of black people is glaringly inconsistent with your attitude toward your own rights. You insist on your right to do as you like regardless of society's interest in limiting the spread of a contagious disease, but you are happy for the rights of black individuals to be subordinated to the goal of reducing crime.
Re: Progressives Gone Wild
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nick Danger
Not sure from where your questions arise, Flighty. Are you saying it's unusual that a person's station in life should be the same as his parents? I'm not gonna lie, I'm worth a little more than my dad now. But for the most part we have followed very similar paths in life - which to me seems like it should be no surprise to anyone.
My point is simply that the playing field is far from level. If you are born into a wealthy family it is hard not to be rich, no matter how stupid you are (eg Donald Trump, Jared Kushner). If you are born into a poor family the dice are loaded against you. A few may succeed, but statistically it's a low probability. If the government can do things to level the playing field (eg assistance to poor families, taxing big inheritances), then why should it not do that rather than just accepting the situation as if it were God-given?
Re: Progressives Gone Wild
Quote:
Originally Posted by
broncofan
There have been a few occasions where I haven't responded to something false he wrote and it wasn't even out of laziness. It was just a sense of pure futility. Something akin to the beginning stages of major depressive disorder. :tongue:
I sometimes ask myself why respond at all, rather than ignoring him until he goes away? I guess there's a few reasons:
1. Arguing is addictive.
2. Making a good rebuttal is satisfying in it's own right, and a good skill to practice.
3. There is small chance that some other reader might be influenced by his arguments.
4. Despite his bluster, I know the arrows sometimes strike home. The giveaway is that he drops the point and shifts to another line of argument, and often gets a bit snarky and defensive.
Re: Progressives Gone Wild
Quote:
Originally Posted by
filghy2
I sometimes ask myself why respond at all, rather than ignoring him until he goes away?
You probably know the line from one of Judith Wright's famous poems 'and there all a world I made in me' -only her celebration of pregnancy here gives birth to a monster of his own making. Once someone has convinced themselves of their own invincibility, tragedy must surely follow -the only way is down. Immunity of the body becoming a solipsism of the self. The mere fact that I trashed every one of his bogus claims about Sandy Hook is in itself unacceptable to him, and I would not be surprised if he questions the facts about the Holocaust or thinks slavery wasn't all that bad.
Not holding my breath here, and about to go away for Christmas and the New Year anyway, for the music, the art, and the convivial conversations with intelligent people over well-cooked meals. Im anfang war die essen!
I wish everyone a Christmas and New Year of peace and serenity, of warmth of heart and hope.
Re: Progressives Gone Wild
Quote:
Originally Posted by
filghy2
I should add that your attitude toward the rights of black people is glaringly inconsistent with your attitude toward your own rights. You insist on your right to do as you like regardless of society's interest in limiting the spread of a contagious disease, but you are happy for the rights of black individuals to be subordinated to the goal of reducing crime.
To say I'm happy about it is really just taking my very objective attitude toward the matter and trying to make something offensive out of it. You don't live here, Flighty, so maybe you actually aren't aware that we have a gang problem in this country. And a growing street crime epidemic. And an increasingly obtuse cadre of progressive legislators who are enabling the entire mess by pushing us to defund our police and handcuff them in a variety of other ways.
Now we definitely DO HAVE a police brutality problem in this country. Any swinging dick with a high school diploma and a clean criminal record can be a cop in most USA jurisdictions. With that kind of gold employment standard, it shouldn't be a big surprise that the Law Enforcement system in general has degenerated into just as much of a criminal enterprise as that against which it's intended to protect us. Some places in this country, if a hit-man is after you, it's just as likely a cop as a thug.
Nonetheless police officers and the rule of law must be respected. You see the results of not doing so in nearly every major Democrat-controlled metropolitan area in the country right now - NYC, Chicago, Atlanta, San Francisco, all in chaos, out of control, all these cities are going to have to literally be tamed like wild west mining camps now. IF we ever get back to sane reasoning about our need for Law Enforcement as a society again. Good or bad, we have to accept it and try to force it to be as good as we can.
But my point is, if black people are committing most of the crimes, why can't police look at that as a clue? Oh, a bodega on Grape Street was robbed at gunpoint again? It's probably one of the Grape Street Crips like it was the last 19 times but I'm going to go shake down a few white people in the suburbs for info. No, wrong, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and eats crackers, it's a goddamn duck.
I agree it's offensive - to publicly say, okay, police are going to start solving crimes by first looking around for any young black thugs in the area. So they don't say it, they just do it. That's the source of your statistical anomaly.
Re: Progressives Gone Wild
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nick Danger
But my point is, if black people are committing most of the crimes, why can't police look at that as a clue?
That is not true. In 2019, 60% of those arrested for violent crimes in the US were white and 35% were black. For property crimes, 68% were white and 28% were black. So if nothing is known about the suspect, it is about twice as likely to be a white person.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s...ables/table-43
It is true that 51% of those arrested for murder were black; however, the great majority were black-on-black murders. In cases where the perpetrator is known, 81% of white victims were killed by another white person.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_a..._United_States
Obviously the per capita offending rates are much higher for blacks, but if you were to get murdered, assaulted or robbed it is still much more likely to be by a white person than a black person.
Re: Progressives Gone Wild
That's because there are more whites than blacks in the USA, Flighty, are you really special enough to need that spelled out for you?
Re: Progressives Gone Wild
Quote:
Originally Posted by
broncofan
There have been a few occasions where I haven't responded to something false he wrote and it wasn't even out of laziness. It was just a sense of pure futility. Something akin to the beginning stages of major depressive disorder. :tongue:
It's really got to that point all over, hasn't it? Just when you lower your expectations to the point where it seems impossible to over-estimate him, he outdoes himself.
Re: Progressives Gone Wild
Time for a simple IQ test:
1. Are these two statements logically equivalent (yes/no)?
(a) A black person is more likely to be convicted of a crime than the rest of the population.
(b) A crime if more likely to be committed by a black person than the rest of the population.
2. African-Americans account for one-third of violent and property crimes in US and 12% of the population. How many times more likely is it that a random African- American will commit a crime than the rest of the population?
3. African-Americans account for 1% of the population of Utah. Would it make sense for the Utah police to focus their crime investigations predominantly on African-Americans?
