Page 4 of 4 [ 64 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

13 Feb 2017, 9:57 pm

Onyxaxe wrote:
Wow, no wonder Jacoby and I don't get along.


You and I don't get along?

I apologize if any of the things I've written here have offended you or anyone else, I can only speak for myself(and only myself for me!) and I feel like I have elaborated to a great degree my experiences and why I believe what I believe. Try not to take it personally, I'll hear anybody out that does the same for me.



Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 59
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,454
Location: Aux Arcs

13 Feb 2017, 10:06 pm

lidsmichelle wrote:
Now, this may come as a shock, but the higher crime rate in black communities comes from - shocker! - the higher poverty level.

Christ. Anyways. It's a known fact that groups/areas with higher poverty levels also have higher crime levels. Due of course, to trying to make money in less legal ways and also due to lesser education because poorer school districts have less funding because funding is based on taxation of residents of that district. Also wealthier school districts have parents that can donate money or get involved with causes to raise money for the school.

My friend grew up in a poverty filled area, with a higher crime rate - white people. Meth head white people. Child prostitution was also a huge issue. It's literally entirely connected with poverty, not one race being more violent than another.

Poverty,the great equalizer.
I lived in Little Rock when I was younger.Ita always been a violent city.HBO did a documentary on the gangs there.Called Gangs of Little Rock.
I'm closer to Springfield,MO now..It's also crime ridden.
So what am I getting at?

Little Rock.pop 197,357
Average income $44,251
42% African American
Odds of being a victim of violent crime 1 in 67

Springfield pop 164,122
Average income $36,107
4.6% African American
Odds of being a victim of violent crime 1 in 74

Both cities have a safety rating of 1,the safest rating is 100.
So it looks like crazy white tweakers are just as big a danger as a black man in a gang.
The stats are from neighborhoodscout and city-data.com.


_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi


Campin_Cat
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2014
Age: 62
Gender: Female
Posts: 25,953
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.

13 Feb 2017, 10:14 pm

lidsmichelle wrote:
...and also due to lesser education because poorer school districts have less funding because funding is based on taxation of residents of that district.

Citation, please.

I don't think that's the way it works. Public schools are STATE-funded, I think----then, the money is distributed to areas (counties / cities); so, in Baltimore City, for instance, if poor areas have bad schools, I'm thinking they need to blame the Baltimore City Council, for misappropriation of funds. YES, taxes help to pay----but, I think it's federal / state / county / city----NOT, to the point of "district". When the Baltimore City Council (or, whomever's in charge of such, in Baltimore City), for instance, doles-out the monies to city schools----and, considering the Council is almost ALL black, and that there's an area with million-dollar mansions (almost ALL whites, except for Ravens players, and other rich blacks)----if it were to be found-out that the Council was distributing MORE money to the whites, than the blacks, the Council would BURN, for it.


lidsmichelle wrote:
Also wealthier school districts have parents that can donate money or get involved with causes to raise money for the school.

Black parents / guardians in Baltimore City, are always having a fundraiser for something, it seems----all-the-time walking the median strips, with their kids in band / cheerleader uniforms, with buckets and signs.




_________________
White female; age 59; diagnosed Aspie.
I use caps for emphasis----I'm NOT angry or shouting. I use caps like others use italics, underline, or bold.
"What we know is a drop; what we don't know, is an ocean." (Sir Isaac Newton)


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

13 Feb 2017, 10:18 pm

I think we can safely say that all gangs are generally bad.

No need to get into a semantics battle over the word "gang", either.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


Kiprobalhato
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2014
Age: 27
Gender: Female
Posts: 29,119
Location: מתחת לעננים

14 Feb 2017, 12:08 am

^ agreed.


_________________
הייתי צוללת עכשיו למים
הכי, הכי עמוקים
לא לשמוע כלום
לא לדעת כלום
וזה הכל אהובי, זה הכל.


LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

14 Feb 2017, 8:15 am

sonicallysensitive wrote:
And looking closer at demographics:
If you're white, there's a 2.9% likelihood you'll be involved in criminal activity.
If you're black, there's a 5.8% likelihood you'll be involved in criminal activity.


Popular opinion is that it's a function of testosterone efficacy.

Higher testosterone efficacy ---> more risk taking and aggression



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

14 Feb 2017, 8:42 am

Just to clarify, I don't distinguish 'black gangs' from any other type of gangs and the point of my posts wasn't to single out any population but rather to make the point that it's circumstantial and that people are products of their environment. Since OP is banned and seemed to have trollish intentions, maybe it would be best for a mod to change the thread title to just 'gangs in the us' so to not to give the wrong impression. On my side of town growing up there were far more Latin Kings and Spanish Cobras than anything else. Everything in Chicago finds its way north sooner than later.

I do believe that the media doesn't talk about out of control drug/gang related violence that imminates from our nation's urban inner cities, the fact that there were 700 murders in Chicago to me is absolutely mind boggling but all we ever hear about is how much some cop did this or that. There are a lot of problems with the police but they're not the only ones responsible for the state of these communities and there is a reason why they are there in those neighborhoods with the mentalities they have too. A lot of these cops now are veterans and the sad scary thing is, some of these neighborhoods are every bit the war zone that they fought in overseas.

I believe the best thing to combat this problem would be the legalization of drugs and prison reform, removing gang members and drugs doesn't accomplish anything if the conditions that brought on this situation persists. I also have a very low tolerance for violent crime, I think fundamentally an eye for an eye is a good concept in terms of justice so its the persecution of people who have never harmed anyone & are more often the victim that is the problem. There can be mitigating circumstances but I think the vast majority of murderers should die.



sonicallysensitive
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 13 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 486

14 Feb 2017, 9:04 am

Jacoby wrote:
Just to clarify, I don't distinguish 'black gangs' from any other type of gangs and the point of my posts wasn't to single out any population but rather to make the point that it's circumstantial and that people are products of their environment. Since OP is banned and seemed to have trollish intentions, maybe it would be best for a mod to change the thread title to just 'gangs in the us' so to not to give the wrong impression. On my side of town growing up there were far more Latin Kings and Spanish Cobras than anything else. Everything in Chicago finds its way north sooner than later.

I do believe that the media doesn't talk about out of control drug/gang related violence that imminates from our nation's urban inner cities, the fact that there were 700 murders in Chicago to me is absolutely mind boggling but all we ever hear about is how much some cop did this or that. There are a lot of problems with the police but they're not the only ones responsible for the state of these communities and there is a reason why they are there in those neighborhoods with the mentalities they have too. A lot of these cops now are veterans and the sad scary thing is, some of these neighborhoods are every bit the war zone that they fought in overseas.

I believe the best thing to combat this problem would be the legalization of drugs and prison reform, removing gang members and drugs doesn't accomplish anything if the conditions that brought on this situation persists. I also have a very low tolerance for violent crime, I think fundamentally an eye for an eye is a good concept in terms of justice so its the persecution of people who have never harmed anyone & are more often the victim that is the problem. There can be mitigating circumstances but I think the vast majority of murderers should die.


...I'm banned... for stating facts and asking a valid question?

Jacoby I'm sorry if you think my intentions 'seem to be trollish', but I should be allowed to ask a very, very simple question and not have fear of being attacked for doing so.

The great 'cop-out' is 'my background/environment is holding me back'.

Federal Census data categorically states that poverty will be avoided if someone completes a high school education, works full-time, and waits until age 21/gets married before having a baby.

Data from here - http://federalsafetynet.com/us-poverty-statistics.html

Nowhere does it state that if you're black you're at a disadvantage.

Maybe poverty - which is, of course, very much linked to crime - is higher with blacks as in general they simply don't study hard enough.

This is statistically accurate, as poverty is higher with whites who don't study hard enough.

Despite the thread being derailed I have still proved that I'm not being racist, and any accusation of racism I have replied to with statistical data.

I'm not asking anyone to like/dislike the statistics - I only present the data in defence of the points made.

If blacks are offended by the hard data in this thread: study harder and cut down on the violent crime.



The question of gang coverage in the media - specifically black gangs - is valid. As I have repeatedly said - this very issue was given lots of coverage in the UK media, but almost overnight the coverage flipped from very frequent to almost non-existent.

Statistically the problem still exists.


Hence asking the question.


No-one should dare tell someone on this forum or anywhere else they are being racist for asking a genuine question.

The question apparently offending others means nothing to me. Deal with it.

I stand my ground on this issue, and will not be bullied into somehow admitting I'm trolling when this is a complete fabrication.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

14 Feb 2017, 9:07 am

There's more to life than just statistics. I don't assume an individual black person will be violent based on statistics. I base it on personality, just like I'd base a white person's predilection towards violence on his personality.

Being black, in and of itself, does not make one prone to violence or crime. People with dark skin are not genetically "programmed" to be violent, or have more testosterone, or whatever.

You shouldn't have threatened Tick with the police. That was dead wrong.



sonicallysensitive
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 13 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 486

14 Feb 2017, 9:11 am

kraftiekortie wrote:
There's more to life than just statistics.
I agree.

But this being the case doesn't somehow invalidate the statistics.

If anyone has an issue, the issue should be with the FBI for creating such statistical data in the first instance.



kraftiekortie wrote:
Being black, in and of itself, does not make one prone to violence or crime.
Statistically violence is far higher with blacks.



kraftiekortie wrote:
People, in general, have to find ways to avoid being in gangs, or avoid being criminals.
Agreed.

Studying hard at school and hopefully furthering one's education at college/uni is a good starter for ten.



sonicallysensitive
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 13 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 486

14 Feb 2017, 9:18 am

OK you've edited your post, so I'll reply to your additions.

kraftiekortie wrote:
I don't assume an individual black person will be violent based on statistics. I base it on personality, just like I'd base a white person's predilection towards violence on his personality.
Again, I don't disagree.

But assuming I was travelling to your country, I'd want to visit wealthier white areas, as statistically I'm less likely to be murdered.

This is self-preservation - not racism.


kraftiekortie wrote:
People with dark skin are not genetically "programmed" to be violent, or have more testosterone, or whatever.
I can't comment on this as I don't know if there have ever been such tests.


kraftiekortie wrote:
You shouldn't have threatened Tick with the police. That was dead wrong.
And I shouldn't have been indirectly threatened for posting statistical data on blacks in the US to defend my position.

I will not have anyone tell me 'I should be careful' for stating facts.

It means nothing to me if you think this was 'dead wrong' or not. I was threatened. I'll defend myself.

And yes, the police could be contacted for what was said.

Kraftie - I'm perfectly justified in what I said. You're wrong for saying I'm not.


I care little if the entire forum attacks me on this issue - I will staunchly defend myself if I'm attacked based on a completely false premise.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

14 Feb 2017, 9:26 am

Tick didn't mean to threaten you. That is plain and obvious to most people.

It's your choice where you choose to visit; that is your right. I don't think it's racism to want to visit "nice" areas, either. I'd rather visit Piccadilly Circus, than King's Cross.

There have been suppositions in the past, not based on scientific evidence, which suggested that dark-skinned people were prone to violence, or were less intelligent than lighter-skinned peoples. All this has been refuted by science.



Last edited by kraftiekortie on 14 Feb 2017, 9:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

14 Feb 2017, 9:29 am

I was just going on what the mod walrus said which was that you were 'permanently banned', a 'persistent troll' 'repeat offender'. You probably want to get that cleared up!



sonicallysensitive
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 13 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 486

14 Feb 2017, 9:36 am

kraftiekortie wrote:
Tick didn't mean to threaten you. That is plain and obvious to most people.
Irrespective of myself trying to assume what someone else meant or otherwise, it was an indirect threat.

And don't dare try to make me feel guilty for defending myself on the matter by saying I'm 'wrong'.

I care little for any guilt trip.

Tick should have been more careful with the wording. End of story.

Move on RE this issue. Kraftie I do not want to fall out with you on this one.



kraftiekortie wrote:
It's your choice where you choose to visit; that is your right. I don't think it's racism to want to visit "nice" areas, either.
Agreed 100%.


kraftiekortie wrote:
There have been suppositions in the past, not based on scientific evidence, which suggested that dark-skinned people were prone to violence, or were less intelligent than lighter-skinned peoples. All this has been refuted by science.
As it should be.

Which just goes even further to show that claiming to be somehow at a disadvantage for being black is complete nonsense.

An important statistic in the presented statistics is that of the police arresting over 3.5 million more whites than blacks. This is despite the statistics I presented demonstrating violent crime is higher across the board with blacks.

And I'm not being racist in categorising crime in such a way. The FBI categorise crime according to ethnicity.


1) I'm not racist
2) Violent crime is higher with blacks. Deal with it and don't shoot the messenger.



sonicallysensitive
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 13 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 486

14 Feb 2017, 9:38 am

Jacoby wrote:
I was just going on what the mod walrus said which was that you were 'permanently banned', a 'persistent troll' 'repeat offender'. You probably want to get that cleared up!
Jacoby...

I'm frequently attacked on this forum for stating facts.

I care little if others are offended by facts, and choose to report me.


If I'm banned from this forum, it should give others plenty to think about RE freedom of speech/any political slant the forum may have.

I completely and unequivocally stand my ground on this issue.



Adamantium
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2013
Age: 1024
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,863
Location: Erehwon

14 Feb 2017, 9:45 am

Moderating

PPR Guidelines:
viewtopic.php?t=204613

Quote:
Protected groups.
The site rules DO protect a few groups. So it is not acceptable to make posts that attack based on (a) gender, (b) race or (c) sexual orientation.
a) So creating sexist threads is not acceptable. It would be acceptable to discuss sexism itself however, for example regarding the glass ceiling in job promotions faced by many women or other social issues associated with sexism.
b) Creating threads attacking black people (or any other colour) is not acceptable. However, it is quite acceptable to discuss issues regarding racial tensions and racism itself. So there would be no problem debating why race riots occurred somewhere, but it would not be acceptable to say that a particular race smells bad or are stupid.
c) Creating threads referring to fa***ts or making offensive remarks about people who are gay, lesbian, queer, transgender etc is not acceptable. It is acceptable to debate sexuality itself and the reasons why some people are not heterosexual. It is also acceptable to talk about gay lifestyles and culture etc, though that is perhaps better done in the LGBT forum.

One final point on these protected groups. While threads can be made discussing "around" sexism, race and sexual orientation, if a member creates a significant number of threads about these topics it may start to look like he has an *agenda* i.e. is pushing the rules a bit too close to the edge attempting to provoke or belittle these groups; in which case moderators will intervene.


This thread misuses statistics to reach invalid conclusions and claims this is justification to violate board rules.

The rules still stand. This is not acceptable.


_________________
Don't believe the gender note under my avatar. A WP bug means I can't fix it.