I'm no racist, but...

[Pete]

I have to agree with Sasquatch on this one. You can't make claims that facts are racist. I did a paper on this, with a very left-wing sociology professor making claims that Hurricane Katrina's events were racist because there were a lot of black people in New Orleans. The fact is that there was a terrible, terrible storm that hit a largely black area. White America did not invent a weather machine to point massive storms at the blacks; it just didn't happen. This is very similar to what is being argued here. It's a fact that more teen mothers are black. It's a fact that there are more black males in jail than any other demographic. This isn't considered racism because the justice system largely prevents falsely accused people from going to jail for crimes they did not commit. A cop may find a broken window from a robbery, and may be racist and pick up a black person found loitering in the area. If they're innocent, then they should be able to get off.

As for the questions that Sasquatch poses, about why there are more minority teen mothers and criminals, the answer isn't because they're (whatever race). It's because in these situations, there are cyclical patterns. If you grow up not knowing who your dad is, chances are he might not have known who his was. Cultural upbringing along with (implied) poverty both play a role. If you have no money to feed your family, you might turn to crime. If everyone else is having sex and having kids, then there's a chance that you might see it as alright, because nobody's telling you it's wrong at 15. If your parents aren't there to discipline and watch your ass because they're both working shitty jobs to try and feed you and your family, then theres a good chance you might get mixed into the wrong crowds. The circumstances often lead to the problems at hand, but at the same time, not all minorities live in the ghetto, do crack and rob places. I'm willing to say that most minorities in shitty situations are good people who are trying to do the best they can with what they've got. It's the dumbasses that ruin it for them and make them look like trash.


On another note, Al Sharpton has called Greeks "Homos" before, and leads crusade after crusade against white people who use their first amendment right. As for Spike Lee, just watch "Do The Right Thing." It has anti-white and anti-police sentiments, making hard working whites look like assholes and police looking like barbarians, while the blacks are saints and martyrs.

I'll sum up the one major scene. A group of black guys go into an Italian-owned pizzeria. One of the guys blasts his boombox, which disturbs the customers. The owner asks him to turn it down. Boombox guy doesn't. Owner asks again. Still blasting it. Owner kicks out the blacks for breaking his rules, AS IS COMMON IN ANY ESTABLISHMENT. A fight ensues and the cops are called. The boombox guy is put in a choke hold by a cop and keeps resisting arrest and being a ****. Because he is being belligerent the cop keeps choking him until he dies.

[vevuxking102]

If there are more blacks altogether who are teen parents, prove it. If there is more blacks in prisons, as in all types of penitentiaries and that they commit more crime, prove it.

I'll sum up the one major scene. A group of black guys go into an Italian-owned pizzeria. One of the guys blasts his boombox, which disturbs the customers. The owner asks him to turn it down. Boombox guy doesn't. Owner asks again. Still blasting it. Owner kicks out the blacks for breaking his rules, AS IS COMMON IN ANY ESTABLISHMENT. A fight ensues and the cops are called. The boombox guy is put in a choke hold by a cop and keeps resisting arrest and being a ****. Because he is being belligerent the cop keeps choking him until he dies.

When has something like that ever happened?

[LocoColt04]

When has something like that ever happened?

He was paraphrasing a scene from the movie.

He even said so right before the quote:

just watch "Do The Right Thing."

I'll sum up the one major scene.

[Pete]

pregnancy rates:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...51C0A9629C8B63

jail:
http://tafkac.org/misc/black_prison_rates.html


it's a movie. the point of the movie is to show the racism of the whites and police officers, explicating how Spike Lee views white people and the NYPD.

[Jin]

If there are more blacks altogether who are teen parents, prove it. If there is more blacks in prisons, as in all types of penitentiaries and that they commit more crime, prove it.

When I said Jews are the real Nazis, I meant that their attitudes nowadays seem a lot like nazism, and with no nazis in power, they seem like the real nazis.

Interesting tactics.

My response can be summed up in your own words, so I'm just going to quote you again, if you don't mind.

prove it.

[Whitney]

Let's play Priviledged White or Asian Kid Mad Libs!

insert how someone you know is a minority, so you couldn't possibly be racist here I'm white and one time someone called me a insert anti-white epithet. Now that's really racist! I'm not a racist, because I've never used a term like that for someone. Yeah, like, when I walk into the neighborhood of people who don't look like me, I get nervous, but it's because they're so known for insert something "deviant" or criminal here.Seriously, doesn't everyone know that insert one, maybe two black people here did something racist once? That makes him or her, and therefore all people of his or her color, horribly racist! Hey, it's not my fault that slavery happened! Actually, I'd prefer if we'd all forget slavery happened. It was bad and wrong, and it made lots and lots and lots of black people poor and lots and lots and lots of white people rich. That lead to insert statistic supporting "deviant" or criminal behavior of people of color here, but I don't want to acknowledge the reasons for that, just the outcome, because it makes people with tans look worse than my ivory kin. I just want to pretend that because I don't agree with slavery, it doesn't affect us today.

Man, I'm not racist, but when black people suggest that I have a lot of unearned shit, it makes me so uncomfortable, I forget that when I go to apply for a job, my interviewer will probably be from my race and share a lot of my mannerisms, patterns of speech, and values. Sometimes I forget that the laws for prosecuting cases regarding crack cocaine are disproportionately more harsh than those regarding greater amounts of powdered cocaine, which are generally black and white drugs, respectively. If I'm really freaked out (like if they get in my face because maybe I called them "well-spoken", said I wanted to touch their hair, or suggested that they knew another person just because that person is black), I forget that I can always come on the internet and talk to a bunch of kids who, like me, are equally persecuted, just for being white.

insert Whitney-hate here



Alright seriously. I just wish people would try -just try!- to look at things from the perspective of people who didn't grow up just like them. I don't like when people dismiss the concerns of people of color, women, people with disabilities, whatever, just because they've never really given any thought to what it would be like to be in their position.

I should join the Fantastic Four. Flame on!

[Walter Sobchak]

Sasquatch, I think you misunderstand WHY minorities commit more crime, or at least do not recognize it. It is largely due to the fact that they are of lower income than the average white American. When you start off with 50% of black families not having a father around, you have a raw deal to begin with. Pete did a good job summing it up.

You are correct in that it isn't my fault as a white person, or yours, but there is still racism in the establishment. And when I say establishment, I mean both the white establishment that caricatures blacks as thugs and the black establishment (B.E.T., rap moguls) that actively encourage the thug look. Both are guilty.

If you compared the crime rate of poor white kids and poor black kids, they would probably be similar. The same for rich black families and rich white ones.

[vevuxking102]

pregnancy rates:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...51C0A9629C8B63

If that was meant to defend the idea that blacks are more likely to be teenage mothers, here's what the article says:

The variation among states on all measures is striking. Teenage pregnancy rates in 2000 were highest in Nevada, at 113 per 1,000, and lowest in North Dakota, at 42 per 1,000, well below the national average of 83.6. Abortion rates were highest in New Jersey, with 47 abortions per 1,000 women 15 to 19, followed by New York, with 46 per 1,000; the Connecticut rate was 30 per 1,000. New Jersey also had the highest pregnancy rates among black teenagers, 209 per 1,000; the rate was 167 per 1,000 in New York and not available in Connecticut. New Jersey had the highest percentage of teenage abortions, 60 percent, with New York at 58 percent and Connecticut at 49 percent. Only 13 percent of pregnancies in Kentucky and Utah ended in abortion.

Pregnancy rates for non-Hispanic white teenagers were highest in Arkansas (77 per 1,000) and lowest in North Dakota (33 per 1,000). For Hispanics, the lowest rates were in Mississippi (71 per 1,000) and the highest in Georgia (169 per 1,000). The lowest rate among black teenagers was in Utah (71 per 1,000).

What kind of defense is that? (I mean, if it was defending that position)

http://tafkac.org/misc/black_prison_rates.html

This is from 1997, well over 10 years ago, and here's the current Department of Justice statistics:

# The prevalence of imprisonment in 2001 was higher for
-- black males (16.6%) and Hispanic males (7.7%) than for white males (2.6%)
-- black females (1.7%) and Hispanic females (0.7%) than white females (0.3%)

# Nearly two-thirds of the 3.8 million increase in the number of adults ever incarcerated between 1974 and 2001 occurred as a result of an increase in first incarceration rates; one-third occurred as a result of an increase in the number of residents age 18 and older.

The percents aren't that much different, and are due to socio-economic factors, not race.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm

Louisiana is basically in the conditions of a third world country (Katrina has only made it worse) and everyone there period is prone to crime.

My response can be summed up in your own words, so I'm just going to quote you again, if you don't mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vevuxking102
prove it.

Just look at Israels treatment of Arabs in the Middle East.

[Pete]

Honestly, what do statistics even matter, whether they are from 10 seconds ago or 10 years ago. The same people are still going to be in jail, and the truth of the matter is that no man (or woman, for all you feminists) is a statistic. There are black people who've gotten thrown in jail for armed robbery, just as there are black men who've got thrown in jail for posession, just like white people have and still do. The real disparity is in white collared crimes, because more often than not, blacks are not in that position in the first place. If you want to know all the stats so badly, you can take the time and google it yourself. I've spent enough time on this site arguing minute details and petty information that I could have written a dissertation. People are stating their opinions on the matter and if they feel that they are or aren't a racist, what should it matter to you?

In no way is this me admitting that I'm wrong. To be honest, I just glanced over the first thing I saw when I googled everything, mostly because I don't care that there are more blacks getting knocked up than hispanics than whites than asians. The real problem is that ****ing 15 year old girls are getting knocked up in the first place, regardless of race. The problem is that people have to resort to crime to feed their families or to afford things because the economy is tanking, jobs are scarce and people have to support more people because their kids are having kids! This is what's wrong with America right now, especially including the fact that we're all sitting here on our asses pointing fingers at the same people we're been pointing fingers at for 300 years.

[LocoColt04]

Louisiana is basically in the conditions of a third world country (Katrina has only made it worse) and everyone there period is prone to crime.

WOW. What the fuck, man?

Okay, so here's how the New Orleans thing works. Roughly seventy percent of the crimes in New Orleans are committed by black people, BUT IT'S NOT BECAUSE OF DISCRIMINATION, IT'S SIMPLE MATHEMATICS. When seventy percent of the population is of a certain ethnicity, it only makes sense that the numbers would line up like that.

But to so blatantly accuse EVERYONE in Louisiana of criminal tendencies? The crime rate wasn't even outrageous until Katrina.

Your methods for debate are severely flawed.



El Wray, along with MANY others throughout the course of this thread since you arrived, has really stated the only thing that needed to be said. The reason there is more "black crime" and "black pregnancy" is because there are more of them in precarious situations where poor choices are likely to be made. That's not a racist statement, it's a statistic.

You're trying to equate statistics with intolerance.

Furthermore, you are so back and forth with what you keep saying that I (along with others who have mentioned it outside the forums) can't figure out what your point really is. You reference sources but fail to make a clear argument. You rebuke points with random factoids and don't seem to have a solid stance. You seem to defend with one post and attack with the next.

WHAT IS YOUR OPINION ON THE SUBJECT?

I'm having a hard time following you.

Clarify this for me, please. Don't quote anything. No statistics. No references. No Wikipedia. I want to hear what YOU have to say so that we may all know exactly what it is you're trying to convey here.

[vevuxking102]

WOW. What the ****, man?

What did I say that made you say what the ****? And don't let the king in the title fool you about my gender

Okay, so here's how the New Orleans thing works. Roughly seventy percent of the crimes in New Orleans are committed by black people, BUT IT'S NOT BECAUSE OF DISCRIMINATION, IT'S SIMPLE MATHEMATICS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Orl...ouisiana#Crime

Not of the statistics I've seen say 70 percent of all crimes is done by blacks.

But to so blatantly accuse EVERYONE in Louisiana of criminal tendencies? The crime rate wasn't even outrageous until Katrina.

Yes it was, New Orleans has been a poor city for decades. Theft and shootings didn't come because of Katrina.

New Orleans has a high violent crime rate. Homicides peaked at 425 in 1994, a rate of 86 per 100,000 that has not been matched by any major U.S. city to date.[48]

From 1999 to 2004, the homicide rate again increased. New Orleans had the highest homicide rate of any major American city in 2002 (53.3 per 100,000 people) and again in 2003 (275 homicides).[49] It should be stated that the number of homicides has decreased since 1994 - the number of homicides in 2004 was about 275, cutting the 1994 count by one-third.

This is due to socio-economic factors, not race.

Your methods for debate are severely flawed.

Using facts is severely flawed? All you do is make claims.

Clarify this for me, please. Don't quote anything. No statistics. No references. No Wikipedia. I want to hear what YOU have to say so that we may all know exactly what it is you're trying to convey here.

What, no articles and no statistics? They might dampen your world view? How come in poor white countries, like certain countries in Eastern Europe that have not yet modernized are plagued with crime, yet no one says it's because of their skin color, it's socio-economic factors with them. But in the U.S., it's because of skin color. God.

The fact is Louisiana is third world, much like Pine ridge or Flint, Michigan. And blacks happen to be the most poverty stricken, hence more crime.

[Jin]

What, no articles and no statistics? They might dampen your world view? How come in poor white countries, like certain countries in Eastern Europe that have not yet modernized are plagued with crime, yet no one says it's because of their skin color, it's socio-economic factors with them. But in the U.S., it's because of skin color. God.

Do you understand human language? LocoColt has not once said that the problems in the US are due to skin colour.

He's asking you to state an opinion because you haven't done so. In a debate, you read the topic, give your opinion and then back it up with facts. All you have done so far is ask people to provide facts to back up common knowledge. It really ruins a debte when the opposing side expresses absolutely no opinion and just responds with "prove" it, when even the audience knows it's true. The only opinion you've stated so far is that you think Jews are oppressive which, go figure, is entirely racist.

Why are you even here?

[Pete]

I'm still waiting to see what this you actually believe for yourself. All you've been doing is throwing around facts and quotes left and right, but not once have you really stated anything but a counter-argument or posed another argument.

[vevuxking102]

Do you understand human language? LocoColt has not once said that the problems in the US are due to skin colour.

No, but he's trying to allude to skin color being a factor in crime, when that cannot be construed as the case.

He's asking you to state an opinion because you haven't done so.

Oh, I thought I did. Sorry if I didn't. My opinion is simply that skin color is not a factor in crime rates in places like Louisiana, but the horrible socio-economic factors are. People here tried to say the crime rates were nothing before katrina, but that's completely false.

All you have done so far is ask people to provide facts to back up common knowledge.

If it's common knowledge, why is it not backed up by facts? I gave the articles and statistics, and they back up what I say, but you guys still say I'm wrong, and then tell me to stop using articles and statistics. Um, okay...

It really ruins a debte when the opposing side expresses absolutely no opinion and just responds with "prove" it, when even the audience knows it's true.

Um, nothing is true unless you prove it. I don't want to debate opinions in this case, if you say it's true something does something, prove it. It's the internet, it should take less than five minutes.

The only opinion you've stated so far is that you think Jews are oppressive which, go figure, is entirely racist.

Of course, since Judaism is a race, like Christianity, yeah...and I said most of them have an oppressive religious attitude, which is religious, not race, but they are a race, like Christianity. Right.

Bottom line: Crime is a matter of race in the US? Prove it. You people are just being all stupid about this, seriously, are you people this foolish?

[Sasquatch]

What factional information is considered racist? And by whom?

Crime/poverty/pregnancy/education statistics by race (showing that specific races have more crime, more poverty, more teen pregnancy, less education), and by quite a few people.

Who's saying pointing out social differences equates to hate? What differences are you talking about?

You implied it.

The funny thing about those racist you listed however is they their racist ideas aren't as hardcore or outspoken as white racist in America, and while inexcusable, they are not as bad as the average American white racist views.

You show that you don't know much about the people I listed -- and let see something that says that there are such things as "average American white racist views".

Who of consequence and of power supports racism and racial laws and programs against whites?

Ever heard of Affirmative Action?

When I said Jews are the real Nazis, I meant that their attitudes nowadays seem a lot like nazism, and with no nazis in power, they seem like the real nazis. ... What I meant was that Jews still act oppressive, just there is no conspiracy behind it. It's just what a lot in the religion think as.

Right. And we're racist because we recognize societal differences between ethnic groups, huh?

If that was meant to defend the idea that blacks are more likely to be teenage mothers, here's what the article says:
...
Pregnancy rates for non-Hispanic white teenagers were highest in Arkansas (77 per 1,000) and lowest in North Dakota (33 per 1,000). ... The lowest rate among black teenagers was in Utah (71 per 1,000).

What kind of defense is that? (I mean, if it was defending that position)

Factual defense, backed up by statistics. If the lowest pregnancy rate among black teenagers is nearly as high as the highest pregnancy rate among white teenagers, and more than twice as much as the lowest pregnancy rate among white teenagers, that's a pretty damn good defense. Hence, blacks are more likely to be teenage mothers. Anything else?

Louisiana is basically in the conditions of a third world country (Katrina has only made it worse) and everyone there period is prone to crime.

I'll have to go with Loco's "what the fuck" on this, because your extreme ignorance doesn't need to be pointed out again.

Just look at Israels treatment of Arabs in the Middle East.

You've yet to prove, or even statistically support, any of your asinine arguments. Instead, you just say "look at this", which is completely irrelevant, and imply that Israelis mistreat Middle Eastern Arabs, despite the huge numbers of Arab Israelis.

If you want more crime statistics by race, try this -- http://www.vdare.com/sailer/050213_mapping.htm . Even with pretty pictures, easy to understand.

And here are some more, from the Department of Justice -- http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm

No, but he's trying to allude to skin color being a factor in crime, when that cannot be construed as the case.

A factor? No. Nobody here has said that race causes crime. But the correlation cannot be denied.

If it's common knowledge, why is it not backed up by facts? I gave the articles and statistics, and they back up what I say, but you guys still say I'm wrong, and then tell me to stop using articles and statistics.

First, it is common knowledge, and second, it is backed up by facts -- which have been presented, multiple times. The only thing you gave, once, was a wikipedia article referring to crime rates in the city of New Orleans. And the one request for you to present your opinion and not the articles and statistics that you're not using anyway was so that everybody here could see YOUR opinion and YOUR views, and why.

Um, nothing is true unless you prove it. I don't want to debate opinions in this case, if you say it's true something does something, prove it. It's the internet, it should take less than five minutes.

It's the internet, not a post-graduate thesis. But seeing as every argument you disagree with has been supported by outside evidence, you're still prettymuch screwed. The rest of us are still waiting for you to back up your opinions.

Of course, since Judaism is a race, like Christianity, yeah...and I said most of them have an oppressive religious attitude, which is religious, not race, but they are a race, like Christianity. Right.

Actually, Judaism is widely considered an ethnicity. Regardless, even if you don't consider it to be "racist", your views are still generalized and prejudiced -- not to mention incorrect and extremely ignorant. I bet all Muslims are terrorists too, huh?

Bottom line: Crime is a matter of race in the US? Prove it. You people are just being all stupid about this, seriously, are you people this foolish?

I did just prove -- by citing statistics -- that race and crime in the U.S. are related. Nobody's saying that it's "a matter of race", only that a correlation exists, and that it's not "racist" to recognize the existence of such correlation.

[vevuxking102]

Crime/poverty/pregnancy/education statistics by race (showing that specific races have more crime, more poverty, more teen pregnancy, less education)

Where are these statistics that show a certain race is more prone to these activities and conditions? You've yet to show it. You people even lambasted me for giving actual articles and statistics on the subject, and just asked for my opinion. In discussions such as this, opinions mean nothing.

Who's saying pointing out social differences equates to hate? What differences are you talking about?
You implied it.

No, you people implied it. You people said everyone screams racism and hate when someone points out social and economic differences, yet I've yet to see that.

You show that you don't know much about the people I listed

Enlighten me, then.

and let see something that says that there are such things as "average American white racist views".

The average white american racist views are this:

1) That the United States is under threat by immigration and other cultures, and if nothing is done about it, the US will be assimilated into a foreign country.

2) That people with other skin colors have only themselves to blame for any social ills that befall them, and nothing should be done to help them, since they are not worth much anyway.

3) Despite their views listed in the second point, they believe that these "inferior" races actually control the United States, and are in a conspiracy of various groups to bring down white people and make the US an oppressive "multi-racial" dictatorship.

(The main goal of such a dictatorship would obviously be to breed white people out of existence, and teach white children it's a-okay to go out with people of another color in schools. Just the horror of it all.)

4) That anglo-saxon and "white Christian" culture must be preserved by all cost, even through violence and intimidation.

(same sort of dumbasses you get mad when someone here in California has a mexican accent or sometimes speaks Spanish).

Affirmative Action

The idea that affirmative action actually is a tool of blacks and browns to control the US and make special laws for themselves is stupid. The fact is, opponents of affirmative action are usually hardcore libertarians or businessmen, who oppose such actions and laws because it hurts their part of the private sector, and don't give a crap about anyone else.

They spread propaganda about affirmative action, which white racist are easily attracted too, because they are stupid.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirma...on#Controversy

Right. And we're racist because we recognize societal differences between ethnic groups, huh?

No, because you say someones skin color makes them more prone to a certain activity. I thought biologist since Darwin's time have debunked such notions, but I guess not.

Factual defense, backed up by statistics. If the lowest pregnancy rate among black teenagers is nearly as high as the highest pregnancy rate among white teenagers, and more than twice as much as the lowest pregnancy rate among white teenagers, that's a pretty damn good defense.

It doesn't say that at all though. It says this:

>>>The variation among states on all measures is striking. Teenage pregnancy rates in 2000 were highest in Nevada, at 113 per 1,000, and lowest in North Dakota, at 42 per 1,000, well below the national average of 83.6. Abortion rates were highest in New Jersey, with 47 abortions per 1,000 women 15 to 19, followed by New York, with 46 per 1,000; the Connecticut rate was 30 per 1,000. New Jersey also had the highest pregnancy rates among black teenagers, 209 per 1,000; the rate was 167 per 1,000 in New York and not available in Connecticut. New Jersey had the highest percentage of teenage abortions, 60 percent, with New York at 58 percent and Connecticut at 49 percent. Only 13 percent of pregnancies in Kentucky and Utah ended in abortion.<<<

Pregnancy rates for non-Hispanic white teenagers were highest in Arkansas (77 per 1,000) and lowest in North Dakota (33 per 1,000). For Hispanics, the lowest rates were in Mississippi (71 per 1,000) and the highest in Georgia (169 per 1,000). The lowest rate among black teenagers was in Utah (71 per 1,000).

Here's the link again:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...51C0A9629C8B63

You people really need yoga lessons. It will help you guys put their heads for firmly in your asses.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teen_pr...onomic_factors

I'll have to go with Loco's "what the ****" on this, because your extreme ignorance doesn't need to be pointed out again.

What, you mean you don't know about Louisianians economic situation, or that it's conditions are comparable to that of Pine Ridge (do you even know what Pine Ridge is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_Ri...an_Reservation

You've yet to prove, or even statistically support, any of your asinine arguments. Instead, you just say "look at this", which is completely irrelevant, and imply that Israelis mistreat Middle Eastern Arabs, despite the huge numbers of Arab Israelis.

Because there is huge numbers of arab israelis, that means they are not mistreated?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ar...bism_in_Israel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_ci...graphic_threat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_r...hts_violations


Getting kicked out of your homes, shot at, having artillery shells blow your neighbors to pieces, just good fun. Geesh.

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/050213_mapping.htm

Hey moron, Steve Sailer is not an qualified source on the subject, he is a racist backwards baboon who does not use science to back things up. I mean actual statistics and articles.

I actually took the liberty to read some more stuff on this Vdare site, and I found:

Promotion of Peter Brimelow and his book "Alien Nation", probably the most hypocritical and stupid crap I've read on the subject of immigration in the U.S.

Racializing the story of Virginia Dare.

For some residents of North Carolina, she has been an important symbol of the state and the desire to keep it predominantly European-American. In the 1920s, a group that opposed suffrage for women feared that black women would get the vote. One group in Raleigh, North Carolina urged "that North Carolina remain white ... in the name of Virginia Dare."[7] Today Virginia Dare's name is used for the anti-immigration group The VDARE Project.

Some people also see her as a symbol of women's rights. In the 1980s feminists in North Carolina called for state residents to approve the Equal Rights Amendment and "Honor Virginia Dare."[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Dare#Symbolism

Some misc. quotes:

"So Virginia Dare could be symbolic of the coming racial nirvana that immigration enthusiasts are forced to start fantasizing about when you compel them to look at the statistical consequences of current policy."

What is racial nirvana in this definition? It links to this page:

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/marriage.htm

I had inserted a few positive remarks about the harmonizing effects of interracial marriage - such as "Intermarriage is what turned the Angles and the Saxons into the Anglo-Saxons.” My correspondent declared my views to be "pure evil."

The overall impact of interracial marriage on the IQ of the children of American mixed marriages is unclear. It might have raised their IQs slightly, since many (but not all) of the non-white spouses are coming from countries where the average IQ is higher than among white Americans. (And we could mimic Canada and make a lot more of an effort to select higher quality immigrants.)



http://www.vdare.com/sailer/whiteness.htm

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/050626_populism.htm

Did you notice he constantly links to articles from the Washington Times? That also blows his credibility off, since the Washington Times is nothing more than right-wing propaganda created by the Moonies, the wacky cult of "Christians" in South Korea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Sailer#Race

"Homosexuality

Sailer has speculated that male homosexuality may be a genetic disease."

HAHAHAHAHAHA!



I guess you glanced over these parts in the article:

The race distribution of homicide victims and offenders differs by type of homicide

For the years 1976-2005 combined -

* Black victims are over represented in homicides involving drugs. Compared with the overall involvement of blacks as victims, blacks are less often the victims of sex-related homicides, workplace killings, and homicide by poison.

* Race patterns among offenders are similar to those among victims.


Although slightly less true now than before, most murders are intraracial

From 1976 to 2005 --

* 86% of white victims were killed by whites
* 94% of black victims were killed by blacks


Stranger homicides are more likely to cross racial lines than those that involve friends or acquaintances

For homicides committed by --

* a friend or acquaintance of the victim, less than one-tenth (8%) were interracial
* a stranger to the victim, one-quarter were interracial


This does not back up your claims at all. Can't you stop doing that yoga and get your head out of your ass?

A factor? No. Nobody here has said that race causes crime. But the correlation cannot be denied.

You people are implying it does. Hell, you just linked to a baboon who claims race is a reason for crime. I guess whites are more likely to commit crimes, because of all the criminal activities that go on in poor Eastern European countries.

First, it is common knowledge, and second, it is backed up by facts -- which have been presented, multiple times.

No they aren't. You people either link to articles that are not backed up by statistics and are just stupid opinions, like yours, or you link to the actual articles which don't even support your claims. This is too funny, you operate like trolls trying to get people to simply rub facts in your face like feces.

The only thing you gave, once, was a wikipedia article referring to crime rates in the city of New Orleans.

Uh, I linked to many articles. And that specific link you refer to was used to dispell the idea that New Orleans didn't have high crime rates before Katrina.

The fact is Louisiana has been crappy for decades.

And the one request for you to present your opinion and not the articles and statistics that you're not using anyway was so that everybody here could see YOUR opinion and YOUR views, and why.

Sorry, in discussions about crime rates, opinions don't mean anything. It's about the facts. Your opinions on the subject don't affect the reality of the situation, one way or the other.

It's the internet, not a post-graduate thesis.

So on the internet, you can just claim, and it makes it true? You claim blacks are more prone to crime because they are black, and it's true? Come on, it's the internet...prove it. Google or Clusty or Wikipedia or whatever you use is a click away.

Actually, Judaism is widely considered an ethnicity.

Uh....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_...2Ethnic_Jew.22

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism...ws_and_Judaism

Regardless, even if you don't consider it to be "racist", your views are still generalized and prejudiced -- not to mention incorrect and extremely ignorant.

How are they generalized, and how are they incorrect?

I bet all Muslims are terrorists too, huh?

HAHAHAHAHA, the group of people I'm defending from Israels actions are mostly Muslim, and you try that cheap shot at me? What's next, Islam is a race? HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Idiot.

I did just prove -- by citing statistics -- that race and crime in the U.S. are related.

Uh, you didn't though.

obody's saying that it's "a matter of race", only that a correlation exists, and that it's not "racist" to recognize the existence of such correlation.

But such a correlation does not exist.

[Cain Highwind]

This is too funny, you operate like trolls trying to get people to simply rub facts in your face like feces.

Aren't you the one doing that? You're the one who came out of nowhere and decided to wage war in debate threads. Not the best way to start out on a forum.

Just my two cents, I stopped caring about this topic long ago.

[vevuxking102]

Aren't you the one doing that? You're the one who came out of nowhere and decided to wage war in debate threads. Not the best way to start out on a forum.

I'm not though, I'm simply arguing for the sake of the reality of the situation. The fact is, many people start up troll threads like this on message boards and usenet groups, hoping to goad people into debunking every point they make, because they are either A. high school or college students who need the information for a report, and don't want to actually dig for the information or ask someone for it, or B. Just get a thrill out of being proven wrong.

[Cain Highwind]

I'm not though, I'm simply arguing for the sake of the reality of the situation. The fact is, many people start up troll threads like this on message boards and usenet groups, hoping to goad people into debunking every point they make, because they are either A. high school or college students who need the information for a report, and don't want to actually dig for the information or ask someone for it, or B. Just get a thrill out of being proven wrong.

Wow, I seriously LOLed. When was the last post made by the first poster made? So you denounce these kinds of threads (which even then you must REALLY be on something if you interpret it that way) and post in them anyway.

Oh the irony ^.^ Delicious.

[vevuxking102]

Wow, I seriously LOLed.

..as opposed to laughing in your head?

When was the last post made by the first poster made?

Huh? That's not what I meant. I meant the post that are responses to me. I do phrase things incorrectly at times, and I apologize for that, I mean the start of the debate I got into.

So you denounce these kinds of threads (which even then you must REALLY be on something if you interpret it that way)

When have I denounced anything? I actually don't see a problem with someone trolling in this sort of way, I just don't understand why they don't simply ask instead of pretending to be an advocate for the opposite view.

and post in them anyway.

Oh the irony ^.^ Delicious.

Because irony has a taste...

[Cain Highwind]

When have I denounced anything? I actually don't see a problem with someone trolling in this sort of way, I just don't understand why they don't simply ask instead of pretending to be an advocate for the opposite view.

It's still perplexing that you call this trolling. Everyone sees this as just fun casual talk with a little debate going on. You come in and angrily wage war trying to meticulously break people's arguments.

Because irony has a taste...

Of course M'Dear! You need to get out more!


"Sometimes it's a good day to die, and sometimes it's a good day to have breakfast."

[vevuxking102]

It's still perplexing that you call this trolling. Everyone sees this as just fun casual talk with a little debate going on.

It's fun casual talk to accuse an entire ethnicity of being prone to criminal activities, all the while giving bogus reasons why...?

You come in and angrily wage war trying to meticulously break people's arguments.

No, I'm not, just showing how reality is.

Of course M'Dear! You need to get out more!

How does it have a physical taste?

[Jin]

This is idiotic.

It's fun casual talk to accuse an entire ethnicity of being prone to criminal activities, all the while giving bogus reasons why...?

Other than Sasquatch, who has made that claim? I said this as a joke originally, but it seems you actually don't understand human language. You haven't understood a single post in this thread at any rate. I still think you're a gag account, because it doesn't seem possible for someone to miss the mark every time.

To accuse LocoColt, of all people, of implying racism is just stupid. I'd say to learn to read between the lines, but first you need to learn to read the lines themselves. Honestly, how your mind functions baffles me.

[vevuxking102]

This is idiotic.

Indeed.

Other than Sasquatch, who has made that claim?

My rebuttal to that users post is directed only at that user, so why does it matter if he's the only one saying it?

I said this as a joke originally, but it seems you actually don't understand human language.

I am still new to it.

You haven't understood a single post in this thread at any rate

Uh...in what way?

I still think you're a gag account, because it doesn't seem possible for someone to miss the mark every time.

..what mark?

You people talk of things, but don't back them up. Can't you simply give an example of what you mean?

To accuse LocoColt, of all people, of implying racism is just stupid.

I didn't. This is directed at that bigfoot guy, who I do not think is racist, but is just misinformed from retarded racist sources. There is a difference.

I'd say to learn to read between the lines, but first you need to learn to read the lines themselves. Honestly, how your mind functions baffles me.

I like to look at reality and see how it is, and then base my views and opinions on it. It is indeed baffling.


Seriously, to stay on topic, if you people think that color determines criminal activity, simply prove it.

[OceanEyes28]

Mm kay, I'm a little late, but the "yoga" and "ass" talk needs to stop. Along with the "morons" and the "idiots" and all the other garbage that takes away from the topic and only gets people pissy at you. If flamebaiting is what you came to do, I need you to stop wasting our time.

However, if you'd like to continue your debate, that's fine.

I have no problem with opposing opinions going back and forth over a topic. That's fine, and you all can throw around as many statistics as you want.

But please, no name calling or smack talk.

And let's get back on topic and save the taste of irony for another discussion. Thank you.

[vevuxking102]

Okay, the name calling stops here. Sorry about that.

[Sasquatch]

Sorry about this being so long. Figured I might as well just put it into one post and say what I needed to.

Where are these statistics that show a certain race is more prone to these activities and conditions? You've yet to show it.

Did you even read my last post? The two links I cited with statistical information showing the correlation between race and crime rates? The links previously cited by others showing the correlation between race and crime rates, along with teen pregnancy rates?

You people even lambasted me for giving actual articles and statistics on the subject, and just asked for my opinion.

You were asked for your views on the subject, and until this post, hadn't cited diddly to support any of your arguments. And by the way, anybody who knows anything about research can tell you that wikipedia is nowhere near a reliable source. If you want to complain about opposing arguments not being supported (when they are), don't try to claim the higher ground by citing wikipedia.

No, you people implied it. You people said everyone screams racism and hate when someone points out social and economic differences, yet I've yet to see that.

You must have forgotten the "Why hide your racist views?" and, even better, "I live in Southern California, which is filled with cowardly racist, who always start off their dumb statements with "I'm not racist...but..." It usually comes from the cowardly white racist, and they say it to me as if I'd agree with their crap, and the ironic thing is...I'm not white! Why preach to the people you hate?"

Nice try, kid.

Enlighten me, then.

Comments regarding the racism of people like Spike Lee and Al Sharpton have already been posted. Jesse Jackson isn't much different from Sharpton, and Farrakhan has actually advocated violence against whites for no reason other than to gain power.

1) That the United States is under threat by immigration and other cultures, and if nothing is done about it, the US will be assimilated into a foreign country.

Wrong. Most sensible people realize that the United States is under threat by ILLEGAL immigration. The U.S. has always been welcome to legal immigration -- hell, even bringing refugees in from many, many other countries. We just don't like it when illegal immigrants come, because they bring with them quite a few other problems. There's no way to say that they're not criminals when their entry into the country is a crime.

2) That people with other skin colors have only themselves to blame for any social ills that befall them, and nothing should be done to help them, since they are not worth much anyway.

Wrong. Very few of us evil white people think "they are not worth much anyway" -- we just like the concept of individual responsibility. People with any skin color usually only have themselves to blame, not just those with a different skin color than mine. I don't blame others for the problems I have -- or my race has -- so why am I blamed for the problems of others -- or other races?

3) Despite their views listed in the second point, they believe that these "inferior" races actually control the United States, and are in a conspiracy of various groups to bring down white people and make the US an oppressive "multi-racial" dictatorship.

(The main goal of such a dictatorship would obviously be to breed white people out of existence, and teach white children it's a-okay to go out with people of another color in schools. Just the horror of it all.)

Seriously, where the hell do you get this stuff?

4) That anglo-saxon and "white Christian" culture must be preserved by all cost, even through violence and intimidation.

Wow, exactly, because the United States has launched genocide after genocide against the whole of North America, cultural wars against rap music and anything latino, and supports the destruction of every non-white civilization around the world. Right, kid. Keep going, this is getting more fun.

(same sort of dumbasses you get mad when someone here in California has a mexican accent or sometimes speaks Spanish).

Most people don't get mad because somebody has a Mexican accent or speaks Spanish -- it's when people can't speak English -- and thus refuse to learn English, then demand that the U.S. adapts to them -- that we get mad.

The idea that affirmative action actually is a tool of blacks and browns to control the US and make special laws for themselves is stupid. The fact is, opponents of affirmative action are usually hardcore libertarians or businessmen, who oppose such actions and laws because it hurts their part of the private sector, and don't give a crap about anyone else.

Wrong again. Damn, you're on a roll. But keep calling opposing views "stupid", it only helps you to gain respect and credibility. Anyway, affirmative action is a program based in racism itself, for the supposed cause of counter-racism. This leads to less qualified applicants being accepted (for loans, colleges, jobs, etc.) because of their skin color. Why is it that racism by whites is evil and wrong, though it hardly exists in America anymore, while racism against whites is socially accepted and even encouraged?

They spread propaganda about affirmative action, which white racist are easily attracted too, because they are stupid.

Of course, everybody who disagrees with a social organized racism program that you agree with is racist and stupid. Wow.

No, because you say someones skin color makes them more prone to a certain activity.

Except that nobody here has said that. Keep trying. Nobody's said that skin color makes anybody more prone to anything, just that there's a correlation between skin color and these "certain activities". Not that skin color causes them, only that the statistics are related.

It doesn't say that at all though. It says this:
...

New Jersey also had the highest pregnancy rates among black teenagers, 209 per 1,000
...
Pregnancy rates for non-Hispanic white teenagers were highest in Arkansas (77 per 1,000) and lowest in North Dakota (33 per 1,000).
...
The lowest rate among black teenagers was in Utah (71 per 1,000).

Here's the link again:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...51C0A9629C8B63

How is this so hard for you to understand? Let's re-re-organize this for you.
Teen pregnancy rates:
Blacks: 71/1000 (Utah) - 209/1000 (New Jersey)
Whites: 33/1000 (North Dakota) - 77/1000 (Arkansas)
Are you STILL trying to say that blacks don't have higher teen pregnancy rates?

What, you mean you don't know about Louisianians economic situation, or that it's conditions are comparable to that of Pine Ridge (do you even know what Pine Ridge is?

Yes -- I also know about "Louisianians" (whatever the hell that is) racial differences, especially concerning Nagin's "chocolate city" comments.

Because there is huge numbers of arab israelis, that means they are not mistreated?

Not necessarily -- because Israel doesn't intentionally and generally mistreat Arabs means they are not mistreated. Counterattacks and national security aren't "mistreatment", and neither are attacks on those who constantly support and participate in the destruction of Israel.

Getting kicked out of your homes, shot at, having artillery shells blow your neighbors to pieces, just good fun. Geesh.

I suppose it's almost as much fun as having hundreds of civilian women and children slaughtered on buses, mentally handicapped children being strapped with explosive vests, and rockets and mortars being aimed at schools, hospitals, and synagogues.

Hey moron, Steve Sailer is not an qualified source on the subject, he is a racist backwards baboon who does not use science to back things up. I mean actual statistics and articles.

Then quit insulting your superiors and start disproving sources presented against your arguments.

Did you notice he constantly links to articles from the Washington Times? That also blows his credibility off, since the Washington Times is nothing more than right-wing propaganda created by the Moonies, the wacky cult of "Christians" in South Korea.

Wow. Anything else you got? Maybe some links to truthism, or al-jezeera? You think the Washington Times is "propaganda", but have no problem with the New York Times, which has been shown many times to be extremely biased?

I guess you glanced over these parts in the article:

The race distribution of homicide victims and offenders differs by type of homicide

No, I didn't -- but I didn't mention it because it has absolutely nothing to do with crime rates by race. Crimes are crimes regardless of motive -- or victim, or reason, or method, or anything else.

This does not back up your claims at all. Can't you stop doing that yoga and get your head out of your ass?

You must have missed the statistics cited in the research you were so quick to dismiss, along with the Department of Justice site. Take another look, and you'll realize that they very much do back up my claims -- and really, everybody's claims, except yours.

You people are implying it does.

Where have any of "us people" ever said that race causes crime? Could you point this out?

Hell, you just linked to a baboon who claims race is a reason for crime. I guess whites are more likely to commit crimes, because of all the criminal activities that go on in poor Eastern European countries.

If you want to bring up other countries and other continents, we can talk about Africa all day long -- or the Middle East, for that matter. But the topic at hand is the United States -- in which, there is a direct correlation between specific races and crime rates. Unless you'd really like to include crime rates (not just numbers, but percentages and rates) from all over the world, but if you know much, you know that they won't help your argument.

No they aren't. You people either link to articles that are not backed up by statistics and are just stupid opinions, like yours, or you link to the actual articles which don't even support your claims.

The numerous links provided here have backed up everybody's arguments except yours. You've yet to disprove any correlation between race and crime, education, teen pregnancy, or poverty -- while correlation has been proven, you keep arguing against it, with no substance to your arguments except insults.

This is too funny, you operate like trolls trying to get people to simply rub facts in your face like feces.

No, we're just trying to get you to offer any facts to support your arguments. Thought your "trolls" insult is especially comedic, as the only one here who would fit that definition is, well, you.

Sorry, in discussions about crime rates, opinions don't mean anything. It's about the facts. Your opinions on the subject don't affect the reality of the situation, one way or the other.

Unless they're backed up by facts. Which they are. Keep trying.

So on the internet, you can just claim, and it makes it true? You claim blacks are more prone to crime because they are black, and it's true?

When did I claim that blacks are more prone to crime "because they are black"? Maybe you should argue against what's presented, instead of fabricating opposing arguments.

Come on, it's the internet...prove it. Google or Clusty or Wikipedia or whatever you use is a click away.

Please don't tell me that you believe that the only thing something takes to be "proven" is a source to back it up. And for somebody that claims that sources cited against you are "propaganda", wikipedia is easy but inaccurate, so I would suggest, if you want to be taken seriously, to start citing other sources. Well, if you want to be taken seriously, I would first suggest changing your views, then citing other sources, but I suppose you should just take what you can get.

Uh....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_...2Ethnic_Jew.22

Uh ... thanks for proving my point that Judiasm is also considered somewhat of an ethnicity and not just a religion. Hence, "ethnic Jews". When are you going to start citing sources that support your primary points, instead of not supporting any of your points or vaguely supporting points irrelevant to the argument?

How are they generalized, and how are they incorrect?

Your quote: "most of them have an oppressive religious attitude". Generalized, incorrect, and most of all, ignorant.

HAHAHAHAHA, the group of people I'm defending from Israels actions are mostly Muslim, and you try that cheap shot at me?

Actually, the group of people you're defending from Israel's actions are mostly Muslim extremist -- which is why Israel is taking any action against them in the first place. But either way, it would be just as ignorant of a generalization as the prejudice you hold against Jews.

Uh, you didn't though.

Except I did, by citing sources and statistics. You might want to actually look at them.

But such a correlation does not exist.

Except that it DOES exist, and has been PROVEN to exist by the numerous sources you've been presented with here.

It's fun casual talk to accuse an entire ethnicity of being prone to criminal activities, all the while giving bogus reasons why...?

Nobody's said that anybody is more "prone" to criminal activities, only recognized the correlation, and the only reasons for this correlation that have been given are non-racial.

I didn't. This is directed at that bigfoot guy, who I do not think is racist, but is just misinformed from retarded racist sources. There is a difference.

The Department of Justice is a "retarded racist" source? You've yet to disprove any argument I've made, which has simply been the existence of a correlation between race and crime/poverty/pregnancy/education.

[Pete]

I'd like to say two things.

Firstly, Sasquatch is my favorite person at the moment.

Secondly, vevuxking102, if it's not too much to ask, could you give us a brief stat sheet of yourself, just so we can try and understand who you are, where you're from and the like. It might make it easier for us to see why you feel the way you do. I'm not trying to pry, but more often than not this is helpful in understanding perspective.

For instance, both Sasquatch and myself are white males, aged 22 and 21 respectively. He's from Wisconsin, I'm from New York City. We know you're from Southern Cali and that's about it, other than your implications that you're a nonwhite female.

[vevuxking102]

Did you even read my last post?

Are you going to keep asking if I even read your post, because I ought to ask if you even proof read your stuff. No, I'm not saying your English is bad, but you don't seem to know what you type.

The two links I cited with statistical information showing the correlation between race and crime rates?

What, these links?

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/050213_mapping.htm

That does not count since Steve Sailer is not a recognized expert in the field, and is a racist idiotic buttplug. His constant linking to the Washington Times proves that.

If that link is not what you're referring to, then I apologize. If so, I'm sorry, it cannot be considered an accurate source.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm

Again, I suggested you apparently did not read it, because here's just some of what it says:

The race distribution of homicide victims and offenders differs by type of homicide

For the years 1976-2005 combined -

* Black victims are over represented in homicides involving drugs. Compared with the overall involvement of blacks as victims, blacks are less often the victims of sex-related homicides, workplace killings, and homicide by poison.

* Race patterns among offenders are similar to those among victims.


Although slightly less true now than before, most murders are intraracial

From 1976 to 2005 --

* 86% of white victims were killed by whites
* 94% of black victims were killed by blacks


Stranger homicides are more likely to cross racial lines than those that involve friends or acquaintances

For homicides committed by --

* a friend or acquaintance of the victim, less than one-tenth (8%) were interracial
* a stranger to the victim, one-quarter were interracial

You shoulda actually read the article.

The links previously cited by others showing the correlation between race and crime rates, along with teen pregnancy rates?

The few other links given have horribly backfired on the people who posted them, so how does that prove their point?

You were asked for your views on the subject

Which I gave, and which are pretty apparent from the nature of my responses.

and until this post, hadn't cited diddly to support any of your arguments.

Uh...sure.

And by the way, anybody who knows anything about research can tell you that wikipedia is nowhere near a reliable source. If you want to complain about opposing arguments not being supported (when they are), don't try to claim the higher ground by citing wikipedia.

HAHAHAHAHAHA! Prove it then. I hear that from so many people when arguing on the internet, yet they never back it up. Study after study has shown Wikipedia is as accurate as any other good source, so if you have a problem with the articles I posted, tell me the problem specifically and why the sources and citations the article uses are false.

You must have forgotten the "Why hide your racist views?"

Wow, that was in the beginning of this thread, and was not targeted at you. I'm referring to people that make your stuff seem rated CE. I'm talking about the people who go, "I'm not racist..but...Mexicans are to blame for basically all issues. They are degenerate, raise the poverty and crime rates wherever they go to, all of their ways are disgusting, and I don't even like the way they speak Spanish! Yeah, that's another thing!? SPANISH! ONLY SPEAK ENGLISH! ONE NATION, ONE PEOPLE, ONE LANGUAGE! AHHH!" You get the idea.

and, even better, "I live in Southern California, which is filled with cowardly racist, who always start off their dumb statements with "I'm not racist...but..."

According to your profile, you live in Wisconsin, so I don't see how that implies to you. However, it is true about here. Orange County, for example, is filled with the cowardly wannabe polite racist.

It usually comes from the cowardly white racist, and they say it to me as if I'd agree with their crap, and the ironic thing is...I'm not white! Why preach to the people you hate?"

I don't see how that implies to you.

Nice try, kid.

Nice try what?

Comments regarding the racism of people like Spike Lee and Al Sharpton have already been posted.

Yeah, but without any context of why they are racist, what racist comments they have made, sources of such, and etc.

I mean you cited Steve Sailer and I gave a bunch of links, from his own website that show his racial and wacko mentality.

I'm sure those people are racist, but the black version of polite racist, but still show it. Come on...show me the links.

Jesse Jackson isn't much different from Sharpton,

So?

and Farrakhan has actually advocated violence against whites for no reason other than to gain power.

Yes, but he's considered a whackjob but most everyone in the US, and in the world, and does not have power. No one actually believes him when he says Jews are descended from space aliens who invaded the Earth. Seriously, is that the best example you got?

Wrong. Most sensible people realize that the United States is under threat by ILLEGAL immigration.

What threat are they?

The U.S. has always been welcome to legal immigration -- hell, even bringing refugees in from many, many other countries.

It's not welcome to legal immigration anymore it seems. Many people around me advocate removing references to immigration off the Statue of Liberty even, which is ironic since it wasn't even built by Americans.

The US does not really take in refugees much anymore.

We just don't like it when illegal immigrants come, because they bring with them quite a few other problems.

What problems?

There's no way to say that they're not criminals when their entry into the country is a crime.

Uh...yeah....

Wrong. Very few of us evil white people

Who implied "evil white people" and who said I was talking about the majority of white Americans? I said majority of racist white americans, which aren't the majority of white americans.

think "they are not worth much anyway" -- we just like the concept of individual responsibility.

Racist do not like the concept of individual responsibility. That would basically destroy their racist views then, since they think of people as collective units based on race.

People with any skin color usually only have themselves to blame, not just those with a different skin color than mine.

True, individually that is usually the case, and redneck poor racist white trash never see it that way. They blame the darkies and others for their problems.

I don't blame others for the problems I have -- or my race has -- so why am I blamed for the problems of others -- or other races?

Who's blaming you specifically for their problems?

Seriously, where the hell do you get this stuff?

Uh, their own ideas. Maybe you should read some of these racist websites and "manifestos"

Wow, exactly, because the United States has launched genocide after genocide against the whole of North America,

Huh? What are you talking about? And in what context? Of course America has committed genocide before.

You seem to think I imply these views are common to most white americans, and not just the racist ones, in the minority. You need to learn to read better.

cultural wars against rap music and anything latino, and supports the destruction of every non-white civilization around the world. Right, kid. Keep going, this is getting more fun.

Uh...white racist do....

Most people don't get mad because somebody has a Mexican accent or speaks Spanish

They do here. It goes like this:

"It's ONLY brown-skinned people. You can SEE their
differences. You have to look at their ugly brown skin while they walk,
drive, or shop in front of you. You may even have to hear a horrifying
accent if you have to speak to them. You may even walk by a bulletin
board, and become paralyzed when you see one of the postings that is in
SPANISH, and not English! Oh, the horror of it all!

But of course, nobody bothers with complaining about all the Chinese
who still don't speak English, or the Russians, or the other WHITE
ethnic immigrants. "

From a funny usenet post I found on the subject. Usenet is fun.

it's when people can't speak English -- and thus refuse to learn English, then demand that the U.S. adapts to them -- that we get mad.

Only very elderly mexicans can't speak English and that does not impose on anyone. Again, it's just the whole dumbass mentality of one language, one people. I never see asians get bitched at for that reason.

Wrong again. Damn, you're on a roll.

Um, thanks.

But keep calling opposing views "stupid", it only helps you to gain respect and credibility.

When have I done that?

Anyway, affirmative action is a program based in racism itself, for the supposed cause of counter-racism.

How?

This leads to less qualified applicants being accepted (for loans, colleges, jobs, etc.) because of their skin color

Uh..proof?

Why is it that racism by whites is evil and wrong,

Because racism is wrong...? Or it's not?

though it hardly exists in America anymore,

While not in the mindset of the majority, it's not like it hardly exist.

while racism against whites is socially accepted and even encouraged?

Oh yes, because all those white politicians, white businessmen, white people in power promote racism against white people!

How is it encouraged and accepted?

Of course, everybody who disagrees with a social organized racism program that you agree with is racist and stupid.

Nooo, only when people inject race into the issue with the intent of deceiving people, like in this case, is it racist and stupid.

Except that nobody here has said that. Keep trying

You've implied it, and keep trying what? You keep saying that, yet I have no idea what you are referring to.

Nobody's said that skin color makes anybody more prone to anything, just that there's a correlation between skin color and these "certain activities".

That's basically saying that they are prone to it, instead of their socio-economic status being prone to it.

Not that skin color causes them, only that the statistics are related.

Only that they are not.

How is this so hard for you to understand? Let's re-re-organize this for you.
Teen pregnancy rates:
Blacks: 71/1000 (Utah) - 209/1000 (New Jersey)
Whites: 33/1000 (North Dakota) - 77/1000 (Arkansas)

Uh, I guess I have to post what it says again:



>>>The variation among states on all measures is striking. Teenage pregnancy rates in 2000 were highest in Nevada, at 113 per 1,000, and lowest in North Dakota, at 42 per 1,000, well below the national average of 83.6. Abortion rates were highest in New Jersey, with 47 abortions per 1,000 women 15 to 19, followed by New York, with 46 per 1,000; the Connecticut rate was 30 per 1,000. New Jersey also had the highest pregnancy rates among black teenagers, 209 per 1,000; the rate was 167 per 1,000 in New York and not available in Connecticut. New Jersey had the highest percentage of teenage abortions, 60 percent, with New York at 58 percent and Connecticut at 49 percent. Only 13 percent of pregnancies in Kentucky and Utah ended in abortion.<<<

Pregnancy rates for non-Hispanic white teenagers were highest in Arkansas (77 per 1,000) and lowest in North Dakota (33 per 1,000). For Hispanics, the lowest rates were in Mississippi (71 per 1,000) and the highest in Georgia (169 per 1,000). The lowest rate among black teenagers was in Utah (71 per 1,000).

I'll just keep copying and pasting, if you want.

Yes -- I also know about "Louisianians" (whatever the hell that is)

People from Louisiana?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Louisianian

Geesh.

racial differences, especially concerning Nagin's "chocolate city" comments.

AHHH! CHOCOLATE! AHH!

What the hell does that have to do with Louisiana's socio-economic situation, and how does that have any barring on anything?

Not necessarily -- because Israel doesn't intentionally and generally mistreat Arabs means they are not mistreated.

But they do...

Counterattacks and national security aren't "mistreatment",

Counterattacks on their own territories...?

and neither are attacks on those who constantly support and participate in the destruction of Israel.

Where's this destruction if Israel? It's a thriving country last time I checked, and countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia aid groups who wish to destroy Israel, and Israel doesn't attack them.

I suppose it's almost as much fun as having hundreds of civilian women and children slaughtered on buses

Hundreds of civilians are being massacred in and near Israel, usually by Israelis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qana_massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qana_airstrike

mentally handicapped children being strapped with explosive vests

Uh...

and rockets and mortars being aimed at schools, hospitals, and synagogues.

And rockets and mortars being aimed at schools, hospitals, and mosque. Yes?

Then quit insulting your superiors

Who's my superiors?

and start disproving sources presented against your arguments.

What, in the case of Steve Sailer? He disproves himself, I just gave links showing what a racist idiot he was, and that basically proves my point.

Wow. Anything else you got?

Uh...

Maybe some links to truthism,

Truthism is a small website that spams the internet with alternate history theories, what does that have to do with anything and why would that have any relevance on the topic at hand?

or al-jezeera?

What does Al-jezeera have to do with Steve Sailer using the Washington Times.

You think the Washington Times is "propaganda"

But it is propaganda. Was it not formed by nutcase Sun Myung Moon and has it not been used for decades to spread moonie right-wing insane propaganda? It's described as "the media arm of Reverend Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church." for Christ sake.

Why doesn't he use the Washington Post?

but have no problem with the New York Times, which has been shown many times to be extremely biased?

Wait, you guys used links from the NY times to try to prove your point, now it's extremely biased and unreliable? Come on, make up your mind.

Prove it's extremely biased.

No, I didn't -- but I didn't mention it because it has absolutely nothing to do with crime rates by race.

Uh, yeah it does. Unless homocide is not crime.

Crimes are crimes regardless of motive -- or victim, or reason, or method, or anything else.

Wait, this entire argument is about the motives of crime itself in relations to race, that there is this supposed correlation between race and crime. Don't you follow?

You must have missed the statistics cited in the research you were so quick to dismiss

I have?

along with the Department of Justice site.

Which didn't back up your claims.

Take another look, and you'll realize that they very much do back up my claims -- and really, everybody's claims, except yours.

Couldn't find how they do.

Where have any of "us people" ever said that race causes crime? Could you point this out?

I said you imply it.

If you want to bring up other countries and other continents, we can talk about Africa all day long -- or the Middle East, for that matter.

What would be the point? It'd just give more perspective on the point that violence, crime, and other ills are caused by poor socio-economic issues. It'd just shoot yourself in the foot.

But the topic at hand is the United States -- in which, there is a direct correlation between specific races and crime rates.

But there isn't. Just a correlations between socio-economic issues.

Unless you'd really like to include crime rates (not just numbers, but percentages and rates) from all over the world, but if you know much, you know that they won't help your argument.

Huh? So there's a global example of darkies committing more crime than whities because of their skin color...what? I thought it would just prove my point more than countries with high crime rates are normally very poor countries.

The numerous links provided here have backed up everybody's arguments except yours.

Show how they have.

You've yet to disprove any correlation between race and crime, education, teen pregnancy, or poverty -- while correlation has been proven, you keep arguing against it, with no substance to your arguments except insults.

Uh..but I have...with basically every link I gave, including a few from you guys.

Unless they're backed up by facts. Which they are. Keep trying.

But they aren't.

When did I claim that blacks are more prone to crime "because they are black"? Maybe you should argue against what's presented, instead of fabricating opposing arguments.

You're the one implying it.

Please don't tell me that you believe that the only thing something takes to be "proven" is a source to back it up.

What, simply claiming it proves it? Anyone can claim anything, it doesn't change reality. Reality is not democratic.

And for somebody that claims that sources cited against you are "propaganda"

I've never claimed that. I in fact used many of the sources you gave against you, so how could I think they are propaganda.

You didn't like to the Washington Times, just the idiot you linked to used it as a source for his stupid articles.

wikipedia is easy but inaccurate

Prove it.

so I would suggest, if you want to be taken seriously, to start citing other sources.

I have. US Department of Justice for one...but sources don't matter to you, you've said many times it's just about the claims and how you talk. So I'll just talk now...if that makes you happy.

Well, if you want to be taken seriously, I would first suggest changing your views

I'll play along. What should I change my views too?

then citing other sources, but I suppose you should just take what you can get.

Again, I want to know what sources you'd approve of. I'll just use those.

Uh ... thanks for proving my point that Judiasm is also considered somewhat of an ethnicity and not just a religion.

I didn't prove that though, it says on the article:

"Ethnic Jew" (also known as an "assimilated Jew," see cultural assimilation) is a term generally used to describe a person of Jewish parentage and background who does not actively practice Judaism but still identifies with Judaism and/or other Jews culturally and fraternally. The term "ethnic Jew" does not specifically exclude practicing Jews, but they are usually simply referred to as "Jews" without the qualifying adjective "ethnic". See: Ethnic group.

The term can refer to people of diverse beliefs and backgrounds due to the complex concepts of what makes a person "Jewish". Since "ethnic Jew" is often used to distinguish non-practicing from practicing ("religious") Jews, a more precise term might be "secular Jew."

"Ethnic Jews" include atheists, agnostics, non-denominational deists, Jews with only casual connections to Jewish denominations or converts to other religions, such as Christianity or Buddhism. Many secular Jews reject the traditional Halakhic view of Jewish identity being based on matrilineal descent, and consider someone Jewish if either parent is Jewish.

"Half-Jewish"

"Half-Jewish" is a term used to describe people who have one Jewish parent and one non-Jewish parent, though it is regarded as controversial. It has no significance as a religious category: while the major Jewish denominations apply different rules in determining the status of children of mixed unions, all versions of these rules agree that a person is either Jewish or not. As a result, many Jews reject the use of the term "half-Jewish," while others may use it to imply that Jewishness is more of a cultural or ethnic identity than a religious one.

People of mixed heritage may not fully identify as Jewish, regardless of whether they embrace Judaism as a religion. In the United States, because of intermarriage, the population of "half-Jews" is beginning to rival that of Jews with two Jewish parents, especially among young children. "Half-Jewish" is emerging as an independent identity with its own traits of tolerance and adaptation, but also perhaps a sense of detachment, spiritual indifference, or unclear identity.[32][33][34]

Other similar terms that have been used include: "Part Jewish", "Partial Jews". The term "Gershom", "Gershomi" or "Beta Gershom" has also been used as a alternative to "half Jewish" and "part Jewish" in connection with descendants of intermarriage (Gershom being the son of Moses and his Midianite wife Zeporah). [35]

The fact is, many races make up Judaism, it's not a race.

When are you going to start citing sources that support your primary points, instead of not supporting any of your points or vaguely supporting points irrelevant to the argument?

Oh you're right, everything I cite backfires on me. Not like you. Oh wait...

But I want to play along, I want you to tell me why you're right about these specific topics, without much argument from me.

Your quote: "most of them have an oppressive religious attitude". Generalized, incorrect, and most of all, ignorant.

How? Prove it.

Actually, the group of people you're defending from Israel's actions are mostly Muslim extremis

Those people in Palestine are not mostly muslim extremist, and didn't have muslim extremist for decades until constant israeli oppression created an enviroment for them to thrive. Still, many of the Palestinian terrorist groups are not muslim extremist, like Fatah, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, etc, etc.

which is why Israel is taking any action against them in the first place.

They are taking action against them because they don't want to give up their piece of land.

But either way, it would be just as ignorant of a generalization as the prejudice you hold against Jews.

How am I predjuice against Jews?

Except I did, by citing sources and statistics. You might want to actually look at them.

I have, but they don't support what you say. But whatever....

Except that it DOES exist, and has been PROVEN to exist by the numerous sources you've been presented with here.

Yeah....

Nobody's said that anybody is more "prone" to criminal activities,

You've implied it.

only recognized the correlation, and the only reasons for this correlation that have been given are non-racial.

Actually, I haven't seen any reasons given for it, only attacks on the idea that socio-economic factors create these actions.

The Department of Justice is a "retarded racist" source?

Nope.

You've yet to disprove any argument I've made, which has simply been the existence of a correlation between race and crime/poverty/pregnancy/education.

Oh dear...

[Sasquatch]

Are you going to keep asking if I even read your post, because I ought to ask if you even proof read your stuff. No, I'm not saying your English is bad, but you don't seem to know what you type.

Your irrelevant attempted counter-arguments lead me to believe you don't know how many facts you're arguing against. Sorry kid, the shoe fits.

That does not count since Steve Sailer is not a recognized expert in the field, and is a racist idiotic buttplug. His constant linking to the Washington Times proves that.

You've yet to prove how the Washinton Times is an unreliable source. Regardless, if you don't like Sailer, don't like him -- I was using his site as a source because of the statistics, not because of his personal opinions. You go ahead and keep on dismissing the facts because they're presented by people you disagree with.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm

Again, I suggested you apparently did not read it, because here's just some of what it says:

I did read it, which is why I know that racial differences exist, with blacks disproportionately represented among homicide victims and offenders. And how do I know that? Because, hey, what do you know, the title of the article is "Racial differences exist, with blacks disproportionately represented among homicide victims and offenders". You must have skipped over the first few lines and graphs to get to the statistics on homicide victims, which has nothing to do with the argument that, well, racial differences exist, with blacks disproportionately represented among homicide offenders.

The few other links given have horribly backfired on the people who posted them, so how does that prove their point?

The citations made by others have proved nobody wrong but you -- namely, that crime and pregnancy rates are higher among blacks than among whites. Yet you still claim to be "winning" ... funny.

Which I gave, and which are pretty apparent from the nature of my responses.

You were asked, multiple times, for your views and the circumstances which lead you to hold these views, so that everybody here can better understand why you continue to deny factual information. If this is too much for you, don't worry about it.

HAHAHAHAHAHA! Prove it then.

You want me to prove that wikipedia is an unrealiable source? Are you serious, kid? Besides common sense and knowledge of anybody above a middle-school education ... Tell you what, I'll offer up as many sources as you want to this, as soon as you discredit the statistics put together by Sailer, or prove that the Washington Times is inaccurate.

Study after study has shown Wikipedia is as accurate as any other good source ...

Then it should be easy to find them, shouldn't it?

Wow, that was in the beginning of this thread, and was not targeted at you. I'm referring to people that make your stuff seem rated CE.

You were referring to people that say, "I'm not racist, but...". Unless you misunderstand your own comments. Unless you've also forgotten, "To those who say "I'm not a racist, but..." I say just embrace your inner klansman, inner nazi, inner black panther, inner whatever racist thinking you subscribe to, and leave me alone." Oh, and unless you want to seem anti-Christian, I'd get away from "CE".

According to your profile, you live in Wisconsin, so I don't see how that implies to you. However, it is true about here. Orange County, for example, is filled with the cowardly wannabe polite racist.

Well it's such a good thing you don't hold any prejudices and negative generalizations, isn't it?

Yeah, but without any context of why they are racist, what racist comments they have made, sources of such, and etc.

Wrong again. Unless you're vying for direct links to every racist comment they've ever made and every time they've blamed others for the problems of their race, which would be extremely childish, examples have indeed been shown.

I mean you cited Steve Sailer and I gave a bunch of links, from his own website that show his racial and wacko mentality.

Yet you still haven't made any arguments at all against the statistics you've been confronted with. Like I said, dislike him all you want. Wacky or not, he still presents statistics that completely disprove any points you've tried to make (or, rather, prove the points that you've disagreed with), and you haven't presented anything against them.

I'm sure those people are racist, but the black version of polite racist, but still show it.

The black version of a polite racist? Damn kid, you're really out there, aren't you? When people advocate violence against another race to prove that they're capable, or support taking money away from hardworking people solely to give it to one specific race for something that nobody for a hundred and fifty years has had anything to do with, or support programs that are nothing but racist in nature ... that's nothing like "polite racist". And blacks being racist aren't different from whites being racist in that they're still racist. "Reverse racism" is just a PC term for racism.

So?

Sharpton = racist. Jackson = Sharpton. This would mean that Jackson = racist. "So" that.

Yes, but he's considered a whackjob but most everyone in the US, and in the world, and does not have power.

Nobody follows Farrakhan? The Nation of Islam doesn't exist? He doesn't make hundreds of thousands of dollars at speaking venues? He -- along with a few other prominent black leaders -- don't affect voters or political issues? Yes, he has power. Maybe not direct authority, but not all power is direct.

What threat are they?

What threat are illegal immigrants? You serious? How about this -- you post some citations that illegal immigrants don't bring with them illegal substances, or that areas with higher numbers of illegal immigrants don't have higher poverty and higher crime. Maybe researching something for yourself -- especially away from wikipedia -- will lead you to learn something, instead of dodging the facts that everybody else presents.

It's not welcome to legal immigration anymore it seems. Many people around me advocate removing references to immigration off the Statue of Liberty even, which is ironic since it wasn't even built by Americans.

And your anecdotes supposedly concerning some people you know are supposed to represent the whole of America?

The US does not really take in refugees much anymore.

When we're not feeding, protecting, and liberating them in their countries, we're bringing them into our countries to do the same thing.

What problems?

Drugs, crime, poverty, dependence on taxpayers, poorer education ... need I go on?

Racist do not like the concept of individual responsibility. That would basically destroy their racist views then, since they think of people as collective units based on race.

Where are you getting these ideas? First you think that racist whites blame those of other races for their problems, then you think that racist whites don't like individual responsibility because it means they couldn't lump all of a certain race together (like you do with Jews). So do they like individual responsibility or not?

True, individually that is usually the case, and redneck poor racist white trash never see it that way. They blame the darkies and others for their problems.

I'm going to go past a simple "wrong" and all the way to "you're full of it" on this. Not only do you lump in other stereotypes and prejudices ("redneck" and "white trash") in with the rest of those you hold, but you also -- again -- contradict yourself with another one of your incorrect accusations. So you're saying that black people are to blame for all their problems, right? Or are white people to blame for black people's problems? Because according to you, if black people blame white people for their problems, they're racists.

Who's blaming you specifically for their problems?

Me specifically, that's rare. My race? Quite often. Especially if you listen to the likes of the racist black spokespeople like Sharpton, or Jackson, or Farrakhan ... or plenty others.

Uh, their own ideas. Maybe you should read some of these racist websites and "manifestos"

Excuse me if I don't keep up with the current racism trends. I've still yet to see many racists that believe half the crap you put on them.

Huh? What are you talking about? And in what context? Of course America has committed genocide before.

Do you know what "genocide" is? Nevermind, I'll admit, that's a stupid question -- if you knew, you wouldn't accuse America of ever committing genocide. But then again, as we've seen before, an issue being completely false doesn't stop you from supporting it.

Uh...white racist do....

Your interpretations of "white racists" have gone from a near-majority of "polite racists", who hold racist views but don't express them to an extreme, to the extreme few who hold xenophobic views and take action against any and every non-white culture. Tell you what, when you figure out your own definitions, come back and debate.

They do here. It goes like this:

OR, it doesn't at all. Try posting actual evidence and statistics, instead of sarcastic exaggerated internet posts.

Only very elderly mexicans can't speak English and that does not impose on anyone. Again, it's just the whole dumbass mentality of one language, one people. I never see asians get bitched at for that reason.

I've very rarely seen Asians that can't speak English. I have, however, seen plenty of non-"very elderly" Mexicans who can't speak English at all, and plenty more who can barely speak functional, moreless conversational English. More yet, there's not an outcry from the Asian community to annex American land and make it part of Asia, or to have American schools teach in Asian languages instead of English so that Asian children don't have to learn English, or against the idea of deporting Asians who are in America illegally, or demanding that local or state governments provide for Asians who can't speak English instead of supporting programs for those Asians to learn English. I have seen Mexicans do all of these things.

When have I done that?

Referring to opponents pulling their head out of their ass, outright insults of "hey moron", or ... ah, there it is. "... stupid opinions, like yours ..." Have you forgotten the other insults you've hurled towards opponents and others who hold opposing views, or do you need to go back and check your own posts again?

How?

How is Affirmative Action racist in nature, or how was it established as counter-racism? Please let me know your level of knowledge and mentality, so I can figure out how long I'm going to have to hold your hand and walk you through the learning process, here.

Uh..proof?

Proof that less qualified applicants are accepted because of their skin color? Do you have any clue what Affirmative Action is?

While not in the mindset of the majority, it's not like it hardly exist.

It doesn't matter if you think that everybody in America holds that "mindset" or not, what matters is whether or not anybody acts upon it. And that, in as much as it has been proven, is extremely rare anymore.

Oh yes, because all those white politicians, white businessmen, white people in power promote racism against white people!

There are some jobs, like public office, that depend on votes, not qualifications or skin color. (Usually, unless you're talking about Obama.) These politicians aren't in danger of losing their jobs if others get special treatment because of their skin color, they only gain minority votes from promising them special treatment. Vote-buying tactics are not uncommon. And I find it interesting that you think that "white businessmen" promote Affirmative Action, when you said earlier that businessmen oppose Affirmative Action because "it hurts their part of the private sector". You were somewhat accurate, however, finally, in that the truth that institutionalized racism and forcing employers to hire less-qualified applicants based on race hurts, well, everything.

Nooo, only when people inject race into the issue with the intent of deceiving people, like in this case, is it racist and stupid.

It's not possible to NOT "inject race" into Affirmative Action, considering that the program is based on racism for the purpose of counter-racism. It is neither racist nor stupid to recognize the facts, yet again.

That's basically saying that they are prone to it, instead of their socio-economic status being prone to it.

Let me help you with this -- http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prone

The existence of a correlation and somebody being "prone" to something are two different things. Regardless, either way, and for whatever reason, you have not at all refuted anyof the statistical proof.

Only that they are not.

The statistics are indeed related, and they've been shown to be related. You've been presented with factual information showing a correlation between race and teen pregnancy rates, which you are completely oblivious to. The two sources of statistics showing a direct correlation between race and crime rates (namely, homicide) that you have been presented with have either been discounted based on your personal disagreement with the presenter's opinions or your ignorance and failure to understand and accept the statistics. It's nobody's fault but yours that you don't know the truth.

Uh, I guess I have to post what it says again:

You don't have to post it again, you just have to read it once. You've posted it more than once, and I've cut away the fat and posted the substance more than once, and yet you STILL refuse to see it.

AHHH! CHOCOLATE! AHH!

When the Mayor, who is at large part responsible for the destruction of the city of New Orleans even before Katrina and the complete failure after, publicly announces that he wants to keep white people from intervening into his plans for his city ... that's bad.

But they do...

Except that you have no proof whatsoever that Israel intentionally mistreats Arabs, and further, no proof that it would be because of racism, and further, the issue has no relevance to the topic at hand of racism in America.

Counterattacks on their own territories...?

When they're being attacked from "their own territories", they attack where they're getting attacked from. Do you honestly not realize the logic in attacking people who attack you? You know what, nevermind, don't even bother answering that.

Where's this destruction if Israel? It's a thriving country last time I checked, and countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia aid groups who wish to destroy Israel, and Israel doesn't attack them.

There's a difference in starting a war and simply defending themselves ... apparently, defending themselves is still too much for you to handle. And while Israel is strong enough to "thrive", they've been being constantly attacked for the last half-century by people whose declared goal is pushing Israel and all Jews and Christians into the sea.

Hundreds of civilians are being massacred in and near Israel, usually by Israelis:

Collateral damage and human shields are all you can dig up?

Uh...

"Uh..." what? Do you think this doesn't happen, that they don't use handicapped, women, children, etc. as their walking bombs?

And rockets and mortars being aimed at schools, hospitals, and mosque. Yes?

If that happened, sure.

Who's my superiors?

From what you've been saying in this thread, prettymuch everybody here.

What, in the case of Steve Sailer? He disproves himself, I just gave links showing what a racist idiot he was, and that basically proves my point.

Like I said, it doesn't matter what kind of person he is or what personal opinions are, what matters is the statistics he presents. And so far, the only arguments you have against him are against him and not the arguments he presented, or the facts and statistics that prove you wrong. He may "prove" that he's racist, or so you think, or even an "idiot", or so you think -- but he has not disproven his own statistics. And neither have you.

Truthism is a small website that spams the internet with alternate history theories, what does that have to do with anything and why would that have any relevance on the topic at hand?

"Alternate history theories"? That's a hell of a stretch there, kid. But the point was that your incredibly ignorant opinions of the Washington Times and complete acceptance and defense of wikipedia would lead one to assume your acceptance of sources like truthism or al-jezeera.

But it is propaganda.

Do you have any arguments other than "it's this way because I say it's this way"? How about some evidence that the Washington Times is inaccurate propaganda?

Why doesn't he use the Washington Post?

Because it's a liberal rag, not much better than the New York Times.

Wait, you guys used links from the NY times to try to prove your point, now it's extremely biased and unreliable? Come on, make up your mind.

It wouldn't matter what sources were used to disprove your false arguments -- they've come from a wide variety, and you've yet to even acknowledge their statistical truth OR present arguments against it.

Uh, yeah it does. Unless homocide is not crime.

Why do you think that statistics on why people kill or who gets killed matter more in an argument about who kills more people than statistics on who kills more people matter?

Wait, this entire argument is about the motives of crime itself in relations to race, that there is this supposed correlation between race and crime. Don't you follow?

Unless you're trying to create a new argument or fabricate another one, the argument has nothing to do with the motives of a crime, only the perpetrators. Where did you get that motive had anything to do with the argument at hand?

I have?

Yes, you definitely missed the statistics that prove you wrong, or else you wouldn't be still trying to argue. Unless you like arguing after you've been proven wrong.

Alright, this is taking way too damn long, so I'm gonna skip through most of the rest of this and eat and get to bed so I can get some decent sleep before work in the morning. When nothing I say -- and no facts or statistics being presented -- are getting through anyway, there's not much point.

Which didn't back up your claims.

The Department of Justice site, which claims that blacks are disproportionally represented by homicide statistics, does indeed back up my claims that blacks are disproportionally represented by homicide statistics.

What would be the point? It'd just give more perspective on the point that violence, crime, and other ills are caused by poor socio-economic issues. It'd just shoot yourself in the foot.

If my argument is that blacks, and not poor people, are disproportionally represented, including worldwide statistics would only help my case. Of course, let's not fail to mention the cause of poverty in all of these cases.

But there isn't. Just a correlations between socio-economic issues.

If there is only a correlation between "socio-economic issues" and crime, you've completely failed to present the correlation or any evidence to support it.

I have. US Department of Justice for one...but sources don't matter to you, you've said many times it's just about the claims and how you talk. So I'll just talk now...if that makes you happy.

The Department of Justice was cited against you, not by you, and you miserably failed in attempting to turn it to your favor by ignoring half of it and quoting sections of it that are irrelevant to the argument. And when, praytell, did I ever say that "it's just about the claims and how you talk"?

I'll play along. What should I change my views too?

Something that could be backed up by factual statistics would be ideal. A good change, you know.

I didn't prove that though, it says on the article:

"Ethnic Jew" (also known as an "assimilated Jew," see cultural assimilation) is a term generally used to describe a person of Jewish parentage and background who does not actively practice Judaism but still identifies with Judaism and/or other Jews culturally and fraternally. The term "ethnic Jew" does not specifically exclude practicing Jews, but they are usually simply referred to as "Jews" without the qualifying adjective "ethnic". See: Ethnic group.

My point was that "Jewish" is considered an ethnicity instead of just a religion -- mainly because your point was that "Jewish" is a title applied only to members of the religion and not of the ethnicity. Your own cite proved you wrong.

Oh you're right, everything I cite backfires on me. Not like you. Oh wait...

I love the irony in this statement, posted immediately after something you cited backfired on yet another one of your bad arguments. In addition to the fact that the only way you can turn around a citation to support you is by omitting all relevant information.

But I want to play along, I want you to tell me why you're right about these specific topics, without much argument from me.

Because the statistics and facts back me up -- that's why I'm right about these specific topics.

Those people in Palestine are not mostly muslim extremist, and didn't have muslim extremist for decades until constant israeli oppression created an enviroment for them to thrive. Still, many of the Palestinian terrorist groups are not muslim extremist, like Fatah, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, etc, etc.

I didn't say most of the people in "Palestine", I said the ones Israel is fighting against. And the so-called "constant Israeli oppression" is made up of counter-attacks, especially since the first military act of the reestablished Israel was its defense against nearly all of its surrounding nations, who attempted to push Israel into the sea. Those surrounding nations, and especially (but not limited to) specific groups within those nations, have kept that same goal.

They are taking action against them because they don't want to give up their piece of land.

Yes -- Israel's piece of land that was captured when it was used as staging areas to invade Israel. Whenever Israel decides to be nice and give some land back, hoping that it will calm the terrorists that hate them, it is again used to launch more attacks against Israeli civilians. There's no reason Israel should give up their land -- they're not expanding, they're only defending their own territory.

How am I predjuice against Jews?

If you don't think that "most of them have an oppressive religious attitude" is prejudiced, then nevermind, you're beyond hope.

Oh dear...

And if the only argument you have is "oh dear" while still dodging and denying the facts, there's not much of a point to argue against you anyway. You've been presented with factual evidence and statistics for a few days now, and you haven't gotten any smarter.