Race and Crime

So because you think that it's more plausible, this means that you have PROVED it?

Can you support this claim?

So it's now 693%, not 250%?

I don't know what you're asking. Can you rephrase?

Correct, and black people do more of OTHER crimes. What's your point?

And that's why you know the names of MANY unarmed black people who have been killed, but you know the names of ZERO unarmed white people who have been killed?

So you're saying that the government reports say that it must be racism?

So your opinion matters more than mine?

Would it be racist if a black officer treated black people differently?

And your "doubt" means that you have proved your case?

Well you already said that I "got a point" when I mentioned how the judge stats were not state specific.

Okay, so you do NOT have proof that the prison system treats black people harsher. I didn't think so! Therefore, you should be open to the idea that white people get less disciplinary sanctions and also get on parole earlier than black people, because they are better behaved while in prison.

 

To suggest that poverty causes crime is the hyperbolic nonsense. It's derisible, and global stats on poverty confirm that.

Crime is a CHOICE.

 

You actually had to hunt down specific crime to even try to argue the point, and even then you did it badly by including so much First World data.

 

.

1) "Village" is a euphemism, obviously. This is about GROUPS .. whether extended family cohabiting, or common purse collectives of some other nature. The GLOBE is made of millions upon millions of these small groups, who practice the ancient human habit of small group mutual obligation and interdependence. Such groups are the very fabric of human society. Only the First World West has abandoned this very important foundation, and is paying a high price for having done so. Rising homelessness, ever increasing dissolution, continued loss of social networks, increasing social isolation, less and less home ownership, etc etc. It was only First Worlders who had the arrogance and hubris to imagine every man was an island, and believes himself entitled to live according to that belief. Of course, we can blame the Welfare State for creating that particular monster. We've created people who have no idea how to take care of themselves - and are freaked out by the reality of it. It's like raising a lion cub with spoiled Labradors, then dumping it in the wild when it reaches adulthood.

2) Collectives can and DO function very well within our modern economies. They exist in their millions, all over the world. This is about people looking after themselves and their own, within that broader context. Humans have always functioned in small groups within a much larger context. Absurd to suggest otherwise.

3) No, I mean if YOU are too fancy and special to tolerate the obligations and limitations of the collective. Many Westerners are too special for collective, so it's not as though you'd have a unique deficit.

4) The vast majority of collectives function WITHIN the broader economy. This is after all about pooled resources/property/labour etc. It has no bearing on the broader economy, and the broader economy has little bearing on the collective - which is half the point of the collective - a bulwark against changing economies!

5) Govt has nothing to do with any of it. Govt is irrelevant.

6) Mutual obligation is the premise of the collective. Nothing to do with Govt.

7) "Citizens" are not a collective! Collective can ONLY be a group of physical and financial familiars, who are mutually dependent upon each other to both perform and behave. Random strangers are not part of your collective, obviously. Your business/personal economics have nothing to do with them, and theirs has nothing to do with you. Keep your own house tidy, and let them do the same.

8 ) And for which they happily pay, if they don't want to produce it themselves. Being in a collective doesn't mean you never buy anything! Some do, some don't.

9) OMG .. you literally had to isolate a single iteration of non-white (and chose Indigenous, no surprise there) to even stay in the argument .. again. You're real good at this. In the meantime, you do realise that I'm indigenous, dontcha? - and I'm still saying that lifelong good health is a function of CHOICES, not skin tone, or racism, or anything else. If a child is raised with a sense of health obligation (another responsibility of being in collective - to preserve oneself in order to remain useful), and this is modelled by elders, then that's what they'll do throughout life.

 

No they don't - and can't - practice mutual obligation, BECAUSE interdependence in the modern GLOBAL economy, - in which each individual or group is a tiny cog with

1. different opportunities to contribute, according to their particular nation's resources and development, and

2. different contributions to make, according to their particular nation's resources and development,

- means "mutual obligation" must be enabled by the state.

Some people look after themselves very well in a free market economy; some don't. Absurd to suggest otherwise.

Your "collectives" must nevertheless function within the free market economy. Absurd to suggest all will prosper in competitive free markets.

What have your mythological "collectives" to do with the real world competitive free market? Note: resources are certainly NOT "pooled" in a competitive free market. Resources are competed for.

An absurd statement; Increasingly complex (post hunter-gatherer) and interdependent economies require government of one form or another.

Continuing absurdity; government is the sine qua non to enable mutual obligation to exist between self-interested individuals.

You already defined your mythical collectives that can all succeed on their own.
Utter garbage, of course, in an global economy in which computer chips are made in one country and cars are made in another, and rice is grown in another, with all players subject to market forced beyond their own control.

Actually this world view WOULD result in the collapse of democracy, if it were widely held.

?? You are claiming poverty is a choice. I demonstrated the Australian nation is committing genocide by literally destroying some aboriginal people - resulting in an AVERAGE 20 year life expectancy gap - by refusing to take into account the cultural effects of the 1788 invasion.

Irrelevant.

And you are proving yourself irrelevant to the cultural problem that needs to be solved. Interestingly, when the 1970's referendum was passed, and aboriginal stock-men were able to claim equal wages for the first time, they were sacked en masse, leading to the further ongoing genocide resulting from 'sit-down' money. (See the youtube video of Bill Mitchell and Noel Pearson discussing the solutions required from government, to create above poverty employment).

If.........

 

...violent crime .....in research from all around the world......what sort of crime are you talking about?

 

[/QUOTE]

Well. You sure got no argument. You're just interrogating me with 10 questions a post.
I'm not your teacher. You either prove a point and source something.

I got a source putting it straight up sourced that
White people do more drug related crimes, yet black people get hunted 300% more often over this.
Black people get searched when driving around because cops are simply racist.
Cops punch black people over their weight of killing them while armed, and killing them while unarmed.
With this, I proved that in general that the cops are racist as a whole and institutionalized racism is a thing.
Same racism happens in the courts where black people get longer sentences than white people under the same circumstances.

This is the American way.

False statement. There is no correlation between % of crime vs % of arrest in racist America.
And you wouldn't be able to prove what % of black people are criminal. Only who gets arrested.

 

You got ONE SINGLE source, and it does not prove that that the prison system treats black people harsher. Also, you randomly changed "250%" to "693%" and now you've changed it again to "300%!"

More crime = more police interactions.

 

You got NO source disputing this. And I don't see why I need to find MORE sources.

You can't dispute an INCREDIBLE MASSIVE difference between white people doing more crime yet black people get arrested over this WAY more often.
You contesting this racism only hints you're so set to keep your white privilege.

US apartheid state till around 1965 has not rooted out their centuries old culture = more police interactions.
And I sourced that the police force applies systemic racism.
Racist profiling was well in place till rather recent.
You're not capable to even look it up.

 

You need to provide evidence for your assertion. I will await you global stats on crime by income.

 

crime is not a choice, there is no such thing as free will just as there is no santa clause, oops my bad.

 

I'm not religious, sorry.

 

Do you have any conception of the sheer number of very poor people living in Asia - from India to Eastern China, and all the way down to Indonesia? And can you also grasp that in most of those places (with the possible exception of the sex-related predation in one particular country - but that's a different kettle of fish) you can walk down the street more safely than you can in your First World Western cities? You can live in a bamboo hut without lockable doors and not fear burglary. Your kids can play safely in the streets without fear of predation. Etc etc etc.

 

Oh dear! Now you're asking for proof to DISPROVE your claim! That's not how it works I'm afraid! The burden of proof is on YOU to prove it, not on me to disprove it! You do NOT have proof that the prison system treats black people harsher. Therefore, you should be open to the idea that white people get less disciplinary sanctions and also get on parole earlier than black people, because they are better behaved while in prison.

I am trying to figure out what you're saying, but it's very difficult when you change "250%" to "693%" and then change it again to "300%!"

Well you already said that I "got a point" when I mentioned how the judge stats were not state specific.

You have only been able to say that ONE crime (drugs) is committed by whites more than blacks!

Correct, and black people do more of OTHER crimes.

Oh right, because your opinion matters more than mine!

 

Religious believe in free will. Atheists dont. You are religious and dont even know it hahaaaaaaa

 

Oh noes. I sourced that black people don't get on parole as easy as white people, and so that goes hand in hand of racism in the US justice system.
Than you toss in that black people behave differently or something, and so give that an explanation,... is something YOU need to prove since YOU tossed it in.

I already ones did the math for you.

The thing is with institutionalized racism, that everybody must be in on it.
It's not just state wide, the feds do it to:
https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/...surveys/miscellaneous/15-year-study/chap4.pdf

Same thing happens when black people drive in their cars.

You still have not sourced this. Most of the time, you knee jerking denialists drag in violent crimes.
While something like murder go without any kind of arrest +40% of the time.
There simply is no correlation between what % got arrested and what % did the crime.
That's just fascists fake news.

Human Rights Watch opinion matters more than yours.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2009/06/19/race-drugs-and-law-enforcement-united-states

the racial discrimination is not just devastating to black Americans.
It contradicts the principles of justice and equal protection of the law that should be the nation's bedrock.
It undermines faith among all races and ethnic groups in the fairness and efficacy of the U.S. criminal justice system.

Ouch

 

I've yet to meet a bona fide religionist who didn't think all was "G-d's plan".

 

I'm saying that it's POSSIBLE that white people get less disciplinary sanctions and also get on parole earlier than black people, because they are better behaved while in prison. However, you're saying that it's a FACT that it's because of racism! I'm saying that it MIGHT be because of racism, but I need the evidence!

Your below math doesn't mention 250% or 300%.

"16% of the black population uses drugs -> about 1.1% gets arrested -> 0.3% gets incarcerated statewide
18.5% of the whites uses drugs -> 0.4% gets arrested -> make it 0.05 gets gets incarcerated statewide

If things were proportionate, than 1.1/16*18.5= 1.3% should have been arrested. The difference between 1.3 and 0.4 actually 318%
0.3/16x18.5 = 0,35. That difference is 693%."

"Sadly, however, history teaches that sometimes individuals are treateddifferently because of the racial, ethnic, or gender group to which they belong." https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/...surveys/miscellaneous/15-year-study/chap4.pdf

What does this have to do with "ONE crime (drugs) is committed by whites more than blacks?"

https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/ucr.asp?table_in=2

This is specific to drugs. Now do murder!

 

I'm saying it fits in a wide pattern of racist behavior in the US against black people.
While you're pushing a fascist white agenda with that so called possibility.

You're just trolling around the fact cops hold a double standard, and arrest white people FAR less when those white people are committing more drug related offenses on average, all in order to not discuss the massive discrepency.

Your point was that a state or some states with far more black people where more drug related arrests happen could be responsible for the discrepancy.
And it can not. The discrepancy is just TOO big, while it also happens on a federal level. You're not responding to this.
Instead you now source that indeed racism is the explanation. Good job.

It has everything to do with a wide pattern of racist behavior by the US police force against black people.

That's sourcing who gets arrested. That's not including who did the crime.
Your idea that % of who did the crime = % who got arrest is a fascist narrative.
I told you before. You keep on failing to prove it.

You're just trolling around by not responding to my argument that HRM opinion of accusing wide spread racism still matters more than your opinion.

 

hmm, good point lol

 

Total fabrication.

 

Your saying that without evidence.

What makes you think that I'm white?

Then why did you say that I "got a point?"

Nope, the report did not say that "racism is the explanation!"

The point is that you have only been able to say that ONE crime (drugs) is committed by whites more than blacks!

Does this not also apply to your drug statistics source?

Again, it is specific to drugs. Now do murder!

 

HRW did not fabricate a thing.
It's just your personally biased opinion that they did.
Your opinion is like a fart in the wind.

 

HRW fabricated every one of their conclusions, just like you do. It's because you're trying to enable black people to commit more crime.

So what do you think these criminals will do for fun if the cops suddenly disappeared?

 

The analyses of millions of people stopped and searched is evidence.
I already sourced that.
HRW says: Racial discrimination in the war on drugs is intolerable
https://www.hrw.org/news/2009/06/19/race-drugs-and-law-enforcement-united-states

So I have evidence. You only got zillions of questions, but no source to rebuke.

I didn't say that. I said you're pushing a white fascists agenda.

This question doesn't change a thing that even the FEDS practice racial discrimination.
That just adds to the entire theme of institutionalized racism.

HRW says: Racial discrimination in the war on drugs is intolerable
So you're plain wrong and pushing your white fascist theme here again.

It's also how black people are treated while driving.
While you've not put proved a thing to counter this.

Point remains: You sourcing who gets arrested is not including who did the crime.

HA! You failed to prove your argument, and now demand that I debunk it?
Prove your own claims!