VIDEO: Pack Of Black Thugs Surround White 13-Year-Old… It Does Not End Well

When did I claim that? Quote me.

White countries were able to ascend to the top positions in the world. It would only make sense the death tolls would be higher when you're dealing with superior firepower, technology, and military training. The stakes are always higher when you're at the top.

Assuming you are white, yes that seems to be the motivation behind your arguments. If you're not white then it makes more sense.

That your claim "apparently, black people have only recently become inherently violent" was silly, even if you were being facetious.

Again, you're moving the goal posts. Your initial argument was that the majority of wars created in the modern era and 20th century were started by whites, and I showed that not to be true. Now you're making the issue the number of deaths. Did you do what I asked and total up the number of dead in all those wars you're ignoring? Or is repeating comfortable left-wing talking points the extent of your abilities, at this point?

I would argue that there is a difference between two countries at war and a group in society that, despite being a small minority of 13%, somehow is responsible for the majority of murders, robberies, and other violent crimes that occur in society. When a country goes to war with another country, you expect deaths to occur. Soldiers who were drafted to go fight were forced into killing people. That's different than someone who kills someone else simply because they are wearing the wrong t-shirt color.

But I understand how desperate you are to deflect attention away from the crime coming from the black community. You don't really have any way of arguing that other groups do it too. They don't. Not even close. So you drag war casualties into the argument because they serve as a good distraction from the real topic that you're unable to stay on, for obvious reasons.

I don't know if they are inherently more violent or not. There are some studies that have been done that there may be a genetic element at work (i.e higher number of "warrior gene" alleles, lower average IQ's, higher levels of testosterone, etc), but culture seems to be a bigger culprit. They are mired in a culture that celebrates gangbanging, drug use, cheap women, shooting cops, etc. 75% of them are born into single-parent households, most of the time with no father. Hard work and academic success are demonized as "acting white" so there's a perpetual state of underachievement. That, and a high amount of racism against whites and other groups that is never challenged by society, unlike with racism practiced by whites.

 

Yeah but you can rest assured that ALL Conservatives are racists and Christian and homophobic.

 

I don't think reality works on a "unless Person (x) denies Sadistic-Savior's claim (y), then (y) is assumed to be true" template.

Again, that premise has to be true in order for several of your arguments to make sense. It's a very common progressive viewpoint.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage

 

When you get accurate data, let me know. It sounds to me like you are equivocating.

The data I posted in Post #85 does separate whites and Hispanics.

Ok.

There you go.

Maybe Chicago is the exception to the rule.

And are significantly more likely to be poor.

Poor people are far more likely to commit violent crimes. The primary variable is not race, it is socio-economic status.

You have already admitted that blacks are not inherently more violent than whites. So what exactly are you attempting to prove? What are these statistics intended to demonstrate?

 

Yes, they simply demonstrate over and over the double standard or the hypocrisy they utilize to try and defend blacks while demonizing whites.

https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2012/06/02/is-the-black-race-more-violent-than-the-white-race/

 

Yea, because there is no more crime in poor black areas than anywhere else.
LOLOLOLOL

 

So Uniform FBI crime statistics are not accurate, now? LOL

Do you see "Hispanic" listed anywhere in the chart? Or do you think they committed no crimes in 2010 and do not belong on the chart?

Thankfully, that is going to change soon:

You mean the data you didn't understand that caused you to mix up crime rates with crime victimization rates?

Go for it.

That doesn't prove what you think it is proving. Refer to ElDiablo's refutation of this source earlier.

Or maybe it's not.

Not compared to Hispanics, who commit less crime.

Hilarious, you just finished using a source (incorrectly) that states that poor blacks commit less crime than poor whites. Now you're trying to argue that it's because of poverty that 49.3% of all murders are committed by blacks. But there are more poor whites in the country than poor blacks, so mathematically, how does this make sense?

Victimization rates don't show causation. It's hilarious how you are making this mistake with your own source.

When did I admit that? I said it could be possible. I'd like to see more research on the subject.

The statistics simply show that blacks commit a highly disproportionate amount of violent crime relative to their population size.

 

It's their #1 forte. #2 is overlooking #1.

I've said it a hundred times though... Think about how miserable it would be if you had to walk on eggshells ALL THE TIME. I'd be pretty damn miserable trying to be politically correct all the time, that's most likely why most liberals look aged. Nancy Pelosi for example, you'd think her brain had shrunk as far back as her eyes are set.

 

I have seen blacks and their ''apologists' make the fallacious argument many times aka.....comparing crime stats to 'war' statistics.............this is apples and oranges..........'War' is sanctioned by a society or government...has nothing to do with criminal behavior unless you want to talk about 'War Criminals' but still it is a different topic than 'crime statistics' which is the compilation of stats comitted by criminals of their own volition aka abberant or deviant type behavior.

 

According to who? I can't refute an opinion. Where is your 85% figure coming from?

 

In the 1950s and 1960s and before, the reverse was the norm where white kids with clubs would surround and beat up black kids. Sometimes blacks were beaten to death.

 

Yeah, and that comes down to socio-economic variables. You are pretending that all racial groups share the same environment, and that is clearly not true. Black people, on average, are a lot more likely to be economically desperate.

Aside from this, we have empirical evidence as well. Wealthy black neighborhoods have significantly lower crime rates than poor black neighborhoods. I am willing to bet the exact same trend exists for all races. Poor people are more likely to resort to violence than wealthy people.

So what? What does that have to do with anything? Waging war (especially a war of aggression) is an act of violence. You think there is a difference betwen dropping bombs or stabbing someone? Gimme a break.

Or because they are the wrong skin color?

And they are three times as likely to be born into poverty as white people.

 

We have already had this discussion.

We see hundreds and hundreds of these "isolated" incidents per year. At some point, you start to evaluate statistics, analyze cultural norms, and suddenly you start to see that this isn't isolated. Not even close.

 

They'd best start "looking out" for themselves, and learning to fight these kinds of punks...

- - - Updated - - -

Only if you are judging white people...negatively. Then it's OK...

- - - Updated - - -

Who judged " a whole race"?

Is it "OK" to point out that one race has a far higher rate of VIOLENT ATTACKS than others? Please, answer it directly.

 

Black males makeup less than 6% of the population,a population that includes millions of poor whites, Hispanics and Asians, as well, but commit MORE THAN 50% of the murders.

Hows about them statistics?

- - - Updated - - -

More poor whites, BY FAR.

 

yeah, except when you evaluate the figure on a per capita basis. You know, because the county is MOSTLY white.

77% of the county is white
13% of the county is black

So... um, per capita, it isn't even close.

 

Please quote me saying that...or stop LYING about what I posted.

- - - Updated - - -

Except that a FAR HIGHER % of poor blacks are VIOLENT CRIMINALS that poor whites, Hispanics , or Asians who are also poor.

- - - Updated - - -

You're the only one who has made "implications" on this thread. The facts about the far higher RATE of violent black crime, compared to other races, are the FBI's.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, they were doing it in AFRICA, for centuries...and sold their captives as SLAVES to slave traders, as well.

 

FBIs UCR is the source. Crime is a byproduct of sociopathic behavior.

 

Once again, only you are making implications. Do not attempt to pretend you are "reading my mind", please, with your silliass crap.

 

"Wikipedia". Seriously??

Locations of ongoing conflicts worldwide, June 2015
Just confuses you, huh?

 

Does any race have a higher occurrence of this gene than others?


Oh...I guess so. From your linked study:


According to the study published in Comprehensive Psychiatry, 34.6% of whites and 53.4% of blacks have 2-repeat allele or less. However, only .5% of whites have the 2-repeat allele version compared to 4.7% of blacks.

That means blacks are 9.4 times more likely to have the extremely dysfunctional version of the gene than whites. Considering that black Americans are 9 times more likely to commit murder, this is very significant.

Other studies have shown even higher rates of occurrence of the 2-repeat allele version of the gene in blacks. Other studies show that the 2-repeat allele version is almost completely non-existent in Asians.



Apparently , genetics ARE "RACIST"!!!!!

 

Nearly 80% of the population vs less than 13% of the population. Der....I'd say it makes the point quite clearly. Now FOCUS ON THE MURDER NUMBERS.....50%+ by blacks.

 

And if I document it with government figures, what then from you ? How will you explain such ? Before i do your homework, and make you more informed, I want something on the table from you.

 

Well, first of all, Iraqis, Afghans, and Syrians are not "blacks".

Secondly, I never said or implied that "blacks are too pure etc.", so your response is a strawman.

I simply pointed out the FACT that the four biggest conflicts of recentness you cited for the purposes of your racist arguments were in some way related to US foreign policy, which is dominated mostly by an elite "white" power structure.

 

I find it relevant to your generalization about "blacks" not being able to fight one-on-one.