I'm no racist, but...

[vevuxking102]

Your irrelevant attempted counter-arguments

My irrelevant attempted counter-arguments? Do you even know what's wrong with that statement?

lead me to believe you don't know how many facts you're arguing against. Sorry kid, the shoe fits.

What facts? And what shoes fit me? No shoes shall ever touch my feet

You've yet to prove how the Washinton Times is an unreliable source.

What? I haven't? Well, let's see how reliable the Moonies are. They believe:

That there leader, Sun Myung Moon is basically God incarnate, and that worshiping him is mankinds last chance of salvation. "the Savior, Messiah and King of Kings of all of humanity"

"Jesus never achieved a thousandth of what Father has done. In his two years and eight months of public ministry, [Jesus] didn't even establish the national foundation. Now, Father has established a foundation of worldwide power that is unprecedented in history."

They also feces are "holy"...or something:

"You use the bathroom each morning. When you defecate, do you wear a gas mask? This is not a laughing matter but a serious one. If you are near someone else defecating, you will quickly move a good distance away. But when you smell your own feces, you do not even notice it. This is because that fecal matter is one with your body. Therefore, you do not feel that it is dirty.

"When you were young, did you ever taste the dried mucus from your nose? Does it taste sweet or salty? It's salty, right? Since you can answer, you must have tasted it! Why did you not feel that it was dirty? It is because it was part of your body.

"Reverend Moon has figured out something that no one in the world knew."

Of course, that's just the tip of the iceberg, but the church is well known for illegal activity, fraud and downright lying.

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/re...un-myung-moon/

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Was..._controversies

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...966889,00.html

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mh...shington_times

e. 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.

He didn't show statistics, he threw numbers not supported by facts and then went on about his racial opinions on matters.

You go ahead and keep on dismissing the facts because they're presented by people you disagree with.

What facts did he present?

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".

Uh...I guess we need another trip to the dictionary:

Pronunciation:
\-sh(ə-)nət\
Function:
adjective
Date:
1555

: being out of proportion <a disproportionate share>
— dis·pro·por·tion·ate·ly adverb

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...roportionately

The title is not suggesting a racial divide exist, it's suggesting that polls inaccurately suggest that. Don't you have reading comprehension?

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.

I think you're the one doing the skipping.

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.

Homicide Type by Race, 1976-2005
Victims Offenders
White Black Other White Black Other
All homicides 50.9% 46.9% 2.1% 45.8% 52.2% 2.0%
Victim/offender relationship
Intimate 56.6% 41.2% 2.2% 54.4% 43.4% 2.2%
Family 60.7% 36.9% 2.4% 59.2% 38.5% 2.3%
Infanticide 55.9% 41.6% 2.5% 55.4% 42.1% 2.5%
Eldercide 69.2% 29.1% 1.6% 54.5% 43.8% 1.6%
Circumstances
Felony murder 54.7% 42.7% 2.6% 39.1% 59.3% 1.6%
Sex related 66.9% 30.5% 2.5% 54.7% 43.4% 1.9%
Drug related 37.4% 61.6% .9% 33.9% 65.0% 1.1%
Gang related 57.5% 39.0% 3.5% 54.3% 41.2% 4.4%
Argument 48.6% 49.3% 2.1% 46.8% 51.1% 2.2%
Workplace 84.6% 12.2% 3.2% 70.5% 26.7% 2.8%
Weapon
Gun homicide 47.2% 50.9% 1.9% 41.9% 56.4% 1.7%
Arson 58.9% 38.1% 2.9% 55.7% 42.0% 2.3%
Poison 80.6% 16.9% 2.5% 79.8% 18.4% 1.8%
Multiple victims or offenders
Multiple victims 63.4% 33.2% 3.3% 55.7% 40.8% 3.5%
Multiple offenders 54.8% 42.5% 2.7% 44.6% 53.0% 2.4%
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

To view data, click on the chart.

Race of Offender and Victim[D]
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

To view data, click on the chart.

Race of Offender and Victim by relationship[D]

Source: FBI, Supplementary Homicide Reports, 1976-2005.
See also Additional information about the data.

Note: The victims of the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks are not included in this analysis.

Related charts on this site

* The number of homicides of children under age 5 by race, 1976-2005
* Homicide victimization rates for children under age 5 by race, 1976-2005
* Homicides of intimates by gender and race of victim, 1976-2005
* Intimate homicide rates by race, gender and relationship, 1976-2005

Patterns of victimization and offending vary by age, gender, and racial group

During the late 1990's, homicide victimization rates dropped for all groups. In recent years, rates for most groups stabilized.

In 2005 --

* Black males 18-24 years old had the highest homicide victimization rates. Their rates were more than double the rates for black males age 25 and older and almost 4 times the rates for black males 14-17 years old.

* Although much lower than the rates experienced in the late 1980's and early 1990's, rates for black males ages 18-24 remain higher in 2005 than in earlier periods.

* After increases in the early 1990's, both white and black 14-17 year old males experienced homicide victimization rates in 2005 that were about the same as those of the early 1970's.

* Young adults (18-24 years old) have the highest victimization rates in each racial and gender group.

* For white females of all ages, victimization rates have declined. Since 1993, rates for black females have also declined in all age groups.

To view data, click on the chart.

Homicide trends in the U.S. Victimization by Age, Race, Gender[D]
Homicide offending patterns are similar to victimization patterns

* Black males 18-24 years old have the highest homicide offending rates. Their rates are more than 3 times the rates of black males 14-17 years old and almost 5 times the rates of black males age 25 and older.

* Young adults (18-24 years old) have the highest offending rates in each racial and gender group.

* For black males 18-24 years old, offending rates declined after 1993 reaching a low in 2004. The rate increased in 2005.

* For black male teens (14-17 years old), offending rates have increased since 2002 but remain relatively low compared to earlier periods.

* For white male young adults (18-24 years old), offending rates fell to an alltime low in 2005.

* For black females of all age groups, offending rates declined since the early 1990's.

* White females of all age groups experience the lowest offending rates.

To view data, click on the chart.

Homicide trends in the U.S. Offending by Age, Race,Gender[D]
Young males, particularly young black males, are disproportionately involved in homicide compared to their share of the population

* For young white males, their proportion of the population increased slightly since 2001, while their proportion of homicide victims has been stable and their proporation of offenders has declined.

* For young black males, their proportion of the population has remained at about 1%. After 1993, their proportion of homicide victims declined slightly before stablizing in recent years. Their proportion of homicide offenders increased rapidly from the mid 1980's to the early 1990's and then declined slightly remaining at over one-quarter of all offenders..

To view data, click on the chart.

Trends in proportions of black and white young males[D]

Source: FBI, Supplementary Homicide Reports, 1976-2005.

Geesh.

The citations made by others have proved nobody wrong but you

How?

namely, that crime and pregnancy rates are higher among blacks than among whites.

Uh, I've never said in certain areas blacks among whites have higher pregnancy rates. I'm arguing their race has nothing to do with it. Haven't you kept up?

Yet you still claim to be "winning" ... funny.

I've never claimed that. What, is this a contest to you?

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.

Uh, I said it is pretty apparent from the nature of my responses what my views are. If you can't figure it out, that's tough for you.

What factual information am I denying?

If this is too much for you, don't worry about it.

It's too much for me. Take this burdon from me, please.

ou want me to prove that wikipedia is an unrealiable source? Are you serious, kid?

Yes, prove it. It's the internet, not hard to do.

Besides common sense and knowledge of anybody above a middle-school education

Yet every single middle school institution I can think of, along with high schools and colleges encourage wikipedia. Geesh, don't pound me with your "common sense" because it isn't sense at all.

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.

Blah, blah blah. If wikipedia is inaccurate, prove it. I've already given my reasons why I think The Washington Times is inaccurate, with factual proof, and why Sailer is obviously not an impartial source on the subject, and is not a qualifited expert in the field, but just a baboons ass, so if you think Wikipedia is inaccurate, show why and prove it. I don't care about your opinion on the site, prove it. I'm going to keep using it until you prove without a doubt every single article on there is not worth citing.

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

You mean the studies? Sure:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061127-8296.html

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2005/...iew051215.html

Wow, that was easy. We're on the internet, see how easy it is to back up your claims, when the facts back them up that is?

You were referring to people that say, "I'm not racist, but..."

I'm still referring to them.

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."

Most of them are racist, and since they are, they should embrace that.

Oh, and unless you want to seem anti-Christian, I'd get away from "CE".

Woops, meant EC. Sorry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESRB#Ratings

Err, how is the wording CE anti-Christian?

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

I guess so...

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.

No, I'm asking for some sources, some evidence of their apparent racism and why it's so bad that it amounts to powerful groups trying to oppress the white race. We are on the internet, so prove it.

Yet you still haven't made any arguments at all against the statistics you've been confronted with.

I'm not arguing against the statistics because they back up what I say.

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.

What statistics does he show? I mean, ones he doesn't put a spin on? What facts are presented in his idiotic articles?

The black version of a polite racist? Damn kid, you're really out there, aren't you?

To Saturn and back...or something.

When people advocate violence against another race to prove that they're capable,

Who are you talking about that advocates violence and is capable of carrying that violence out? Prove it that the black racist you list do that and have that power? Louis Farrakhan is a joke, and he has no power whatsoever. Him, and the New Black Panthers, and other black racist groups are considered jokes by mainstream socieities, and are not powerful. List me recent intense terrorist attacks conducted by them, list me prominent murders done by them, something that would prove they are carrying out this violence you mention.

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

Who supports that, and who's doing that?

r support programs that are nothing but racist in nature ...

What programs do you rerfer too?

hat's nothing like "polite racist"

In actuality, they just are the black versions of David Duke and the such, polite racist. They are not like Kent Hovind, or Ron Paul, or those guys who think it's rational to prepare for an upcoming race war between white americans and non white americans, and that every single piece of government legislature is meant to bring down and destroy the white race.

And blacks being racist aren't different from whites being racist in that they're still racist.

I never said it was good or any different.

"Reverse racism" is just a PC term for racism.

How?

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

Great logic. I knew Al Sharpton was a shape shifting creature, but can you prove how this shape shifting being is a racist? I actually don't disagree with you, but I want to see you prove it to see you don't just believe every piece of racist crap you are fed.

Nobody follows Farrakhan?

Did I say that?

I said:

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

Having followers does not equate to power.

[quote]The Nation of Islam doesn't exist?[/quote}

Did I say that? It simply existing means black racism is prominent and is being made into laws?

He doesn't make hundreds of thousands of dollars at speaking venues?

What, white racist don't make millions at speaking venues? That means?

He -- along with a few other prominent black leaders -- don't affect voters or political issues?

They affect a fringe minority. Prove to me their "influence" has affected the politics in this country to go into their favior.

Yes, he has power. Maybe not direct authority, but not all power is direct.

What power does he have?

What threat are illegal immigrants? You serious?

Yep.

How about this -- you post some citations that illegal immigrants don't bring with them illegal substances,

What, that's the threat? By the way, you make the claim, you prove it. Prove to me the trafficking in the US is most prominent among new illegal immigrants that have barely anything but their own clothes. Come on, prove it. I'm not here to do your homework.

r that areas with higher numbers of illegal immigrants don't have higher poverty and higher crime.

Maybe it's because they are poor, and are only allowed to live in already inpolverished communities, where crime is already rampant? Can you prove that illegal immigrants have moved into any good standing neighborhoods and made them crap?

Maybe researching something for yourself -- especially away from wikipedia -- will lead you to learn something, instead of dodging the facts that everybody else presents.

But you haven't presented any facts on that particular subject. Come on, it's the internet...show them.

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

I've actually never said I'm talking about people who represent the majority. I've actually said the white racist I talk about are a minority. On this issue however, it's not so much racism, just stupidity. The few racist asses who spread the propaganda about illegal immigrants do control what these dumbasses think, and I hear over and over, "We need to stop welcoming immigration" "Immigration is degenerating our society" "We need a wall across Mexico" Yeah, that will work. Everyone loved the Berin Wall, and everyone loves a police state.

When we're not feeding, protecting, and liberating them in their countries,

What countries is the US feeding, protecting and liberating? The US has done quite the opposite in history.

we're bringing them into our countries to do the same thing.

Prove it.

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

Proof...?

Where are you getting these ideas?

I think it's called reality.

First you think that racist whites blame those of other races for their problems,

Of course they do. All racist blame the 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).

They don't, because they are lazy parasites who just want to blame others for their problems.

When have I done that with Jews, and how are they a race, and how do they come into this particular part of this discussion?

So do they like individual responsibility or not?

I never said they did. Hence, they don't.

I'm going to go past a simple "wrong" and all the way to "you're full of it" on this.

Fine...

Not only do you lump in other stereotypes and prejudices ("redneck" and "white trash")

How is redneck and white trash sterotyping and predjuice? What, white trash doesn't exist? Black trash exist, so why can't white trash...?

in with the rest of those you hold, but you also -- again -- contradict yourself with another one of your incorrect accusations. accusations. So you're saying that black people are to blame for all their problems, right?

What? The concept of black people does not count as an individual. When an entire community is affected and made poor, those people are not held responsible. White trailer park trash does not fit into that situation. They are always lazy deadbeats, who beat up their spouses, get hard ons from the Confederate flags, blame everyone else for their individual mental and emotional problems, and are generally parasites. Seriously, don't you have reading comprehension?

Or are white people to blame for black people's problems?

Did I ever say that white people are to blame for black people's problems?

Because according to you, if black people blame white people for their problems, they're racists.

If they blame an entire race for all their problems, they usually are racist.

Me specifically, that's rare. My race?

A race of billions of people is specific...?

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.

....

Excuse me if I don't keep up with the current racism trends.

You are already conforming to racist trends, aren't you?

I've still yet to see many racists that believe half the crap you put on them.

So what do white racist believe in?

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.

What..?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocid...story#Americas

But then again, as we've seen before, an issue being completely false doesn't stop you from supporting it.

Or not...

Your interpretations of "white racists" have gone from a near-majority of "polite racists"

The majority of America are polite racist..?

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.

Yeah..., this is getting too weird. Seriously, do you have reading comprehension?

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

But I've posted plently...oh nevermind. Everything I post is wrong. This is a contest, according to you, and you beat me....damn.

I've very rarely seen Asians that can't speak English.

They're all over here. But that's okay, with me at least. And with all these racist who just have some bent against mexicans.

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.

You have...? They are not here. Guess they are all over Wisconsin.

More yet, there's not an outcry from the Asian community to annex American land and make it part of Asia

What Mexican outcry is there to annex California or Arizona or such and make it part of Mexico? No one here wants to live in Mexico, why would they want successful US states to be part of a crappy country?

or to have American schools teach in Asian languages instead of English so that Asian children don't have to learn English,

Uh...schools here teach in vietnamese. However, they learn English as well, and Spanish too. Prove to me Mexicans are trying to make it so that their children don't speak English. Do they have some bent against English or something?

or against the idea of deporting Asians who are in America illegally

What are you talking about? The Korean and Vietnamese communities are against that, and joined with the anti-immigration bill protest this state saw a few years ago. So did European immigrants. Yes, WHITES in those protest. Oh noes...

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.

Yeah, when is that happening?

I have seen Mexicans do all of these things.

Cool, prove it.

Referring to opponents pulling their head out of their ass,

That's not an insult, that's just what you need to do.

outright insults of "hey moron",

How is that an outright insult?

there it is. "... stupid opinions, like yours ..."

It's not an insult when your questions really are stupid.

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?

Can't you check them for me?

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.

If it's racist, can't you just prove it's racist, without all the other crap? Come on, it's the internet...show me the proof.

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

Yes I do, and can you prove to me that happens? Or is it a conspiracy...?

It doesn't matter if you think that everybody in America holds that "mindset" or not,

Uh...

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

what matters is whether or not anybody acts upon it. And that, in as much as it has been proven, is extremely rare anymore.

How..?

There are some jobs, like public office, that depend on votes, not qualifications or skin color.

Yes, but how are they racist?

(Usually, unless you're talking about Obama.)

Yeah, because he's a qualified candidate..

These politicians aren't in danger of losing their jobs if others get special treatment because of their skin color

How so...?

they only gain minority votes from promising them special treatment.

When does that happen?

Vote-buying tactics are not uncommon. And I find it interesting that you think that "white businessmen" promote Affirmative Action,

I didn't say they did.

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.

Where is there institutionalized racism, in the sense that benefits blacks and hurts whites?

It's not possible to NOT "inject race" into Affirmative Action,

How? It's a socio-economic issue, not a race issue.

considering that the program is based on racism for the purpose of counter-racism.

It's not though:

Affirmative action, sometimes called positive discrimination outside the United States, refers to policies intended to promote access to education or employment aimed at a historically socio-politically non-dominant group (typically, minority men or women of all races). Motivation for affirmative action policies is to redress the effects of past and current wrongful discrimination and to encourage public institutions such as universities, hospitals and police forces to be more representative of the population.

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

It is neither racist nor stupid to recognize the facts, yet again.

What facts?

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.

But you haven't implied that...

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.

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.

Yawn...

When the Mayor, who is at large part responsible for the destruction of the city of New Orleans

How is he responsible?

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

I can't find any of that anywhere...

even before Katrina and the complete failure after,

Isn't that Bush and FEMAs fault?

publicly announces that he wants to keep white people from intervening into his plans for his city ... that's bad.

He did? He just made one dumbass statement. Where did you get that?

Except that you have no proof whatsoever that Israel intentionally mistreats Arabs,

But I just gave them.

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.

You brought it up, but since you see it as irrelevant, I won't bring it up anymore. You can just PM me with the rest of your Israel diatribe.

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

The incident took place amid heavy fighting between the Israeli Defense Forces and Hezbollah during "Operation Grapes of Wrath". Israeli, U.N. and U.S. officials accused Hezbollah of using civilian refugees as human shields by opening fire from positions near the UN compound. A United Nations military investigation later determined it was unlikely that Israeli shelling of the U.N. compound was the result of technical or procedural errors.[3]

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

"Alternate history theories"?

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

That's a hell of a stretch there, kid. But the point was that your incredibly ignorant opinions of the Washington Times

So criticism of the Washington Times is amount to writing about space aliens living in the core of the Earth?

nd complete acceptance and defense of wikipedia

Because Wikipedia has some damning evidence against that? How is that at all like Truthism?

lead one to assume your acceptance of sources like truthism or al-jezeera.

How is Al-Jezeera related to Truthism? They are completely different websites.

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?
Quote:
Why doesn't he use the Washington Post?
Because it's a liberal rag, not much better than the New York Times.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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"?
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.

Snore, snore, snore. The fact that you make a comparison of Al-Jezeera, a news station, to Truthism, a small website dedicated to spamming video sharing sites about reptilian humans and alternate history theories just shows what a moron you are and your lack of understanding of the English language.

Come on, you can do better.

[nix]

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

Homicide Type by Race, 1976-2005
Victims Offenders
White Black Other White Black Other
All homicides 50.9% 46.9% 2.1% 45.8% 52.2% 2.0%
Victim/offender relationship
Intimate 56.6% 41.2% 2.2% 54.4% 43.4% 2.2%
Family 60.7% 36.9% 2.4% 59.2% 38.5% 2.3%
Infanticide 55.9% 41.6% 2.5% 55.4% 42.1% 2.5%
Eldercide 69.2% 29.1% 1.6% 54.5% 43.8% 1.6%
Circumstances
Felony murder 54.7% 42.7% 2.6% 39.1% 59.3% 1.6%
Sex related 66.9% 30.5% 2.5% 54.7% 43.4% 1.9%
Drug related 37.4% 61.6% .9% 33.9% 65.0% 1.1%
Gang related 57.5% 39.0% 3.5% 54.3% 41.2% 4.4%
Argument 48.6% 49.3% 2.1% 46.8% 51.1% 2.2%
Workplace 84.6% 12.2% 3.2% 70.5% 26.7% 2.8%
Weapon
Gun homicide 47.2% 50.9% 1.9% 41.9% 56.4% 1.7%
Arson 58.9% 38.1% 2.9% 55.7% 42.0% 2.3%
Poison 80.6% 16.9% 2.5% 79.8% 18.4% 1.8%
Multiple victims or offenders
Multiple victims 63.4% 33.2% 3.3% 55.7% 40.8% 3.5%
Multiple offenders 54.8% 42.5% 2.7% 44.6% 53.0% 2.4%
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

88% of statistics are made up on the spot...

[vevuxking102]

88% of statistics are made up on the spot...

Proof?

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

[Govinda]

Hold on Vexus, hold on. You're taking this thread seriously and you're getting your info from Wikipedia. At the same time. I'd get failed on any essay I submitted which had the W word mentioned in it. Luckily, the rest of us aren't really taking this seriously, so it's okay.

Here's the thing.

There is a correlation between ethnic minorities and teen pregnancy, drugs, crime, etc. But it's not because of their bodies, they have no innate deficiency (as a whole); it's about where they live. Even in this day and age, ethnic minorities still band together in 'ghettoes'. They can't afford college or healthcare in the US, they make their money from an illegal, underground economy (read: drugs) which their kids get involved in half the time, there's unemployment, and so on.

Take East Harlem in New York. You're born there a third generation Puerto Rican and you see your parents making their money from bagging coke vials (I'm not saying this happens to every P.R...). You grow up thinking this is the norm, despite them telling you it's wrong. They don't have near enough money to send you to college, so why bother with school? You can clearly see that there's a lot more money to be made from coke than from either some shitty job on a building site or from social security.

Either that, or you make a go of it, get all A's while surrounded by crime, guns, and depravation, get a scholarship, and get the hell out. Or you finish high school, get a white collar job (despite your adress being 'East Harlem NY') and try to pull yourself up to middle class and to the American luxuries which await you, such as decent healthcare and a university education for your kids.

The majority take Route A. But they don't do it because some innate Puerto Rican gene tells them to - they do it because they grew up in it, and it's the easiest way to make a living.

Same basic theory applies to most groups, just with tweaks. Illegal immigrant from Mexico lands in US, gets neat job mowing lawns, will not be long until he looks for better ways to make money, will still not make enough money to get either healthcare or education (sorry, America sucks like that, it really does) and so on...

Cheerybye loves

[vevuxking102]

Hold on Vexus, hold on. You're taking this thread seriously and you're getting your info from Wikipedia. At the same time. I'd get failed on any essay I submitted which had the W word mentioned in it. Luckily, the rest of us aren't really taking this seriously, so it's okay.

Uh..can you prove that?

I've heard many people claim Wikipedia is discarded as a bad source of information in the American Education System yet I find no evidence of that, and qualified experts in their respected fields actually promote Wikipedia.

[Govinda]

Uh..can you prove that?

I've heard many people claim Wikipedia is discarded as a bad source of information in the American Education System yet I find no evidence of that, and qualified experts in their respected fields actually promote Wikipedia.

No, they don't. It's absolute sin to involve Wikipedia in any kind of academic work - it's a fail even for HNC essays (HNC isn't too fussy). Anybody who came up with academic research which cited Wikipedia (unless it was research about Wikipedia) would be laughed out of their discipline.

Some of the crap on that website is insane. Yes, it's cool if you're wondering, 'Hey, how do blimps work?' of an afternoon, but beyond that, no.

Maybe the 'American Education System' does accept it, but the Scottish Education System (check ma caps yo) does not. Since the Yank academics tend to shove their standards on everybody else since they're the majority in the international arena (read: most money), I'd assume they don't use Wiki as genuine source.

I'd laugh my silly Scottish arse off if they did though, haha.

Whoaspam. Cool.


ps - you didn't provide evidence either. But I'll leave that be.

[vevuxking102]

No, they don't. It's absolute sin to involve Wikipedia in any kind of academic work - it's a fail even for HNC essays (HNC isn't too fussy). Anybody who came up with academic research which cited Wikipedia (unless it was research about Wikipedia) would be laughed out of their discipline.

Really? Prove it. That's all I ask. Another problem with the whole anti-wikipedia argument is that it does not focus on the individual articles, never citing problems with the actual information presented. What kind of argument is that? All wikipedia articles are is citations and sources, so if you have a problem with the individual article, list the problems, don't blast the entire website. Especially without sources.

Some of the crap on that website is insane. Yes, it's cool if you're wondering, 'Hey, how do blimps work?' of an afternoon, but beyond that, no.

Examples..?

Maybe the 'American Education System' does accept it, but the Scottish Education System (check ma caps yo) does not.

Proof...? The BBC, from the UK, actually reported that Wikipedia is reliable.

Since the Yank academics tend to shove their standards on everybody else since they're the majority in the international arena (read: most money), I'd assume they don't use Wiki as genuine source.

They actually do though.

I'd laugh my silly Scottish arse off if they did though, haha.

That'd make you look like a fool, though.

ps - you didn't provide evidence either. But I'll leave that be.

I have though. What, the links I provided don't actually exist?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061127-8296.html

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2005/...iew051215.html

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

http://mashable.com/2007/08/08/wikipedia-color-coding/

http://trust.cse.ucsc.edu/

[Sasquatch]

My irrelevant attempted counter-arguments? Do you even know what's wrong with that statement?

What's wrong with that statement ... hmmm ... Oh, I got it. You haven't attempted any counter-arguments. I see it now. My bad.

What facts?

It doesn't surprise me that you don't know what facts you're arguing against. But there are plenty.

What? I haven't? Well, let's see how reliable the Moonies are. They believe:

And here you go again. Don't attack the argument, attack the presenter. If your argument is that the Washington Times is inaccurate, present evidence that the Washington Times is inaccurate, not that those who have something to do with it disagree, no matter how severely, with you. That would be like saying my dog is vicious, and then citing evidence that I'm crazy.

He didn't show statistics, he threw numbers not supported by facts and then went on about his racial opinions on matters.

Of course, because statistics you don't agree with are just "numbers". And instead of arguing against these "numbers" and presenting some numbers of your own, you attack the man that presented them. Nice tactic there, kid.

What facts did he present?

All those statistics you disagree with ... facts. This is a pretty simple concept.

: being out of proportion <a disproportionate share>
— dis·pro·por·tion·ate·ly adverb
...
The title is not suggesting a racial divide exist, it's suggesting that polls inaccurately suggest that. Don't you have reading comprehension?

Holy hell, are you friggin' serious? It's not the "polls" that "suggest" that a racial divide exists, it's the STATISTICS that PROVE that "racial differences exist, with blacks disproportionately represented among homicide victims and offenders". Where does it say anything about inaccurate polls or public perception?

I think you're the one doing the skipping.

Well then let me "skip" to the information that relates to the subject at hand, shall I?

Homicide Type by Race, 1976-2005
Victims Offenders
White Black Other White Black Other
All homicides 50.9% 46.9% 2.1% 45.8% 52.2% 2.0%

Do you understand that little chart? Check out the "offenders" column. Thought the numbers are a little off-center here, "White" is 45.8%, "Black" is 52.2%, and "Other" is 2.0%. See it yet? OFFENDERS. WHITE OFFENDERS make up slightly more than half, whereas BLACK OFFENDERS make up slightly less than half. WHY do black homicide offenders (that's murderers, by the way) almost equate to white homicide offenders? In other words, why are there almost as many black murderers as there are white murderers? That's "disproportionate", by the way.

* Black males 18-24 years old have the highest homicide offending rates. Their rates are more than 3 times the rates of black males 14-17 years old and almost 5 times the rates of black males age 25 and older.

Why do you keep denying this? Or do you think that black males 18-24 years old make up the largest group of people in the United States? That's the only way their high homicide offending rates would be anwhere near proportion.

Young males, particularly young black males, are disproportionately involved in homicide compared to their share of the population

WHAT'S NOT TO GET?

* For young black males, their proportion of the population has remained at about 1%. After 1993, their proportion of homicide victims declined slightly before stablizing in recent years. Their proportion of homicide offenders increased rapidly from the mid 1980's to the early 1990's and then declined slightly remaining at over one-quarter of all offenders..

One percent of the population, more than twenty-five percent of the murders. How is that not bad?

How?

How have the citations provided proved nobody wrong but you? Let's see ... Citations have been provided. These citations have proven you wrong. These citations have not proven anybody else wrong. Hence, the citations provided have proved nobody wrong but you.

Uh, I've never said in certain areas blacks among whites have higher pregnancy rates. I'm arguing their race has nothing to do with it. Haven't you kept up?

No, you never admitted that blacks have higher teen pregnancy rates than whites do, even though the facts show exactly that.

What factual information am I denying?

All of it related to the issue, mainly. All of it that goes against your incorrect opinions -- which, basically, is all of the factual information related to the issue.

Yes, prove it. It's the internet, not hard to do.

Then why haven't you been able to back up any of your claims? It's the internet, it's not hard to do ... except for your claims, anyway.

Yet every single middle school institution I can think of, along with high schools and colleges encourage wikipedia. Geesh, don't pound me with your "common sense" because it isn't sense at all.

Really, just, wow. Of the dozens of teachers and professors whose classes I have attended, I have heard nothing but discouragement from anybody with more than three functioning braincells from using wikipedia to back up arguments. I've also heard stories of extremely false wikipedia articles, heard juvenile and immature acquaintences recite their own stories of modifying articles for fun, and seen extreme ignorance and bias of multiple ends of the spectrum in a wide variety of wikipedia articles. Nobody involved with education considers wikipedia anywhere near a "reliable source".

You mean the studies? Sure:

Your first citation discusses a study conducted that found that wikipedia had more factual errors than Encyclopedia Britannica.
Your second citation refers to a study that was conducted with 55 graduate students, split into two groups, and thirteen percent of the "expert" group found errors in their assigned wikipedia articles. The publisher of the study himself urges against such general interpretation of the study. I especially like the last statement -- "caution—and further research—needs to be used before citing anything learned from Wikipedia as a fact."
And last but not least, your third citation is about the same study used in your first citation. You can find a hundred articles about the same study, and it's still just one study.

So you have two sources, one of which proves that wikipedia has more factual errors than Encyclopedia Britannica, and the other is about a study that is so small and insignificant (not to mention negative towards wikipedia) that even the person who conducted the study doesn't put much faith in it. Whose side of this issue are you trying to defend?

Wow, that was easy. We're on the internet, see how easy it is to back up your claims, when the facts back them up that is?

Hahahahah. Yes, I see that it's quite easy to back up my claims with facts. I also see that it's also quite easy for you to back up my claims with facts. Backing up your own claims, on the other hand, seems pretty difficult.

Most of them are racist, and since they are, they should embrace that.

Do you honestly think that you hold no prejudices? Most people who say "I'm not racist" are racist and should "embrace their inner klansmen"?

Woops, meant EC. Sorry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESRB#Ratings

You use the video game rating system in a debate?

No, I'm asking for some sources, some evidence of their apparent racism and why it's so bad that it amounts to powerful groups trying to oppress the white race. We are on the internet, so prove it.

Jackson: "Hymietown". Sharpton: "White folks was[sic] in caves while we was[sic] building empires." Farrakhan: "Murder and lying comes easy for white people." Examples of Spike Lee's racism, apparent in his movies, have been noted. Not to mention that he blames white people for his poor movie revenues because, obviously, if white people weren't racist, they would go see his movies.

And as for why it's "so bad that it amounts to powerful groups trying to oppress the white race", if you want to manipulate it by putting it that way -- like I said, Affirmative Action, which consists of racial preferences, is as much "oppression" as any other type of racism. Only in this program, it's institutionalized.

What statistics does he show? I mean, ones he doesn't put a spin on? What facts are presented in his idiotic articles?

Statistics on race and crime. You know, the ones that relate to the current argument. Are you going to continue spewing accusations, or are you going to respond to the statistics and facts that disprove your claims?

Who are you talking about that advocates violence and is capable of carrying that violence out? Prove it that the black racist you list do that and have that power?

Advocate. ADVOCATE violence. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/advocate

And Farrakhan has indeed advocated violence for the sole purpose of intimidation.

Louis Farrakhan is a joke, and he has no power whatsoever.

He is indeed a joke, you finally say something that makes sense. But having no authority doesn't mean he has no power.

Who supports that, and who's doing that?

It's called reperations for slavery, and a lot of black leaders support it.

What programs do you rerfer too?

That are nothing but racist in nature? Namely, Affirmative Action, though there are plenty of others.

In actuality, they just are the black versions of David Duke and the such, polite racist. They are not like Kent Hovind, or Ron Paul, or those guys who think it's rational to prepare for an upcoming race war between white americans and non white americans, and that every single piece of government legislature is meant to bring down and destroy the white race.

First, way to slander Kent Hovind and Ron Paul, but let's see some --- you know what, nevermind, I know better than to ask for evidence from you by now. Second, if you're trying to compare Louis Farrakhan to David Duke and refer to both of them as "polite racists", you're more out-of-touch with reality than I initially suspected.

How?

[response to ""Reverse racism" is just a PC term for racism."] What's wrong, wikipedia doesn't have an entry for "reverse racism"? It's a term keyed by people who think that racism has historically been against specific races, and that racism by those races against the "historically oppressive race/s" is somehow different. Either way, it's racism.

I actually don't disagree with you, but I want to see you prove it to see you don't just believe every piece of racist crap you are fed.

Because since I disagree with you and agree with the facts, I must be racist, or at least gullible to the "racist crap I am fed", which could also be called factual information. Like I've said plenty of times, facts are not racist, and believing the facts does not make somebody racist.

Did I say that? It simply existing means black racism is prominent and is being made into laws?

Not at all -- but it's one of the many, many factors.

What, white racist don't make millions at speaking venues? That means?

Which white racists make millions at "speaking venues", where their entire subject is racism and blame, that isn't widely known to be a racist? And why do you continue to dodge and make excuses for nonwhite racists?

They affect a fringe minority. Prove to me their "influence" has affected the politics in this country to go into their favior.

Minority votors are a "fringe minority"? And please don't tell me that you're so ignorant and arrogant as to tell me to prove to you that the influence of black leaders hasn't affected politics. Please tell me that you know more than that.

What power does he have?

Influence is power.

By the way, you make the claim, you prove it.

Actually you were the first to bring up illegal aliens and arguments against the bad things they come with. It was your claim that our illegal immigrant situation doesn't make us unsafe. It was your claim, you prove it.

I'm not here to do your homework.

Since I'm not failing miserably at presenting my arguments, that's fairly obvious. But apparently you're not here to do your own homework, either.

Maybe it's because they are poor, and are only allowed to live in already inpolverished communities, where crime is already rampant? Can you prove that illegal immigrants have moved into any good standing neighborhoods and made them crap?

If you live in southern California, you should know. But since you don't have a good view from that rock you live under, check out Gainesville, Georgia, which I've seen firsthand. And if you ask me to prove that illegal immigrants have invaded communities and "made them crap", I would expect that you could prove situations of illegal immigrants moving into "crap" neighborhoods and greatly improving them. Actually, no, I wouldn't expect that, not from you.

I've actually said the white racist I talk about are a minority.

Except in the area you live in and Orange County, which you used as examples.

The few racist asses who spread the propaganda about illegal immigrants do control what these dumbasses think, and I hear over and over, "We need to stop welcoming immigration" "Immigration is degenerating our society"

Having been exposed to more right-wing "propaganda" than the average south-California teenager, I've still never heard anybody say either of these things, or anything bad about "immigration" as a whole. It's illegal immigration, the act of breaking laws to enter the country, that quite a few people have a problem with.

"We need a wall across Mexico" Yeah, that will work. Everyone loved the Berin Wall, and everyone loves a police state.

Are you honestly trying to compare the Berlin Wall to the protection of a hostile border? You've got to be shitting me, you can't truly be that damn stupid.

What countries is the US feeding, protecting and liberating? The US has done quite the opposite in history.

Well, let's not forget about the fifty million people in Afghanistan and Iraq that have been recently liberated and are now being protected, after they've been fed for decades, all done by the U.S. Or the dozens, if not hundreds, of other countries and regions that are kept from starvation and/or slaughter by U.S. will alone, because of their own people, invasions, or natural disasters. This includes Mexico.

Prove it.

Look up the Hmongs. Then, if you want to see them, take a trip to Wisconsin or Minnesota.

I think it's called reality.

The problem is exactly that -- what you "think" is reality and what actually is reality are two completely different things. This is why you constantly avoid, ignore, or discount facts that don't fit your argument.

They don't, because they are lazy parasites who just want to blame others for their problems.

And I bet they're ignorant and prejudiced to boot, huh? Too bad they're not more like you, ain't it?

When have I done that with Jews, and how are they a race, and how do they come into this particular part of this discussion?

When you said that most of them have an oppressive attitude, since the beginning of time and modern times when they've been considered an ethnicity, and because you attempted to bring up their nonexistent "racism" against Arabs. Anything else?

How is redneck and white trash sterotyping and predjuice?

In the same way that "******" and "porch monkey" are prejudice.

What? The concept of black people does not count as an individual.

Of course not -- each one of those black people counts as an individual. Hence, "individual".

When an entire community is affected and made poor, those people are not held responsible.

So whose fault is it? Of course, it's not the black community's fault that the black community suffers, right? I mean, the blame for the problems of the black community falls on others, right?

White trailer park trash does not fit into that situation.

So black poor communities are helpless and not held responsible, but white poor communities are different? Sounds like one hell of a double standard based on race.

They are always lazy deadbeats, who beat up their spouses, get hard ons from the Confederate flags, blame everyone else for their individual mental and emotional problems, and are generally parasites.

So tell me, are you trying to be an ignorant racist, kid, or does it just come naturally? Tell you what, I'm done. You refuse to accept facts, you refuse to find facts of your own, you refuse to acknowledge opposing arguments, and hell, you're a perfect example of what's been discussed in this thread since it was formed -- people that think others are racist because they agree with factual information. Go troll somewhere else. I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

[vevuxking102]

Since all you're trying to do is rile up a fight, I'm only going to answer a few of your questions:

And here you go again. Don't attack the argument, attack the presenter. If your argument is that the Washington Times is inaccurate, present evidence that the Washington Times is inaccurate, not that those who have something to do with it disagree, no matter how severely, with you. That would be like saying my dog is vicious, and then citing evidence that I'm crazy.

Look, I provided links to the organizations that run the Washington Times, that show how unreliable they are, so if you want to ignore that, fine by me.
I'm not doing your research for you, I provided the links. Up to you to read them. If you think the Moonies and their organizations are reliable, then fine.

You use the video game rating system in a debate?

I said, it makes it seem EC, as in it makes it seem G. What does that have to do with debating? Are you retarded or something?

And Farrakhan has indeed advocated violence for the sole purpose of intimidation.

Yes, but he's considered a joke by almost everyone in the world, and thus has no real power. He's not a threat to anyone.

He is indeed a joke, you finally say something that makes sense. But having no authority doesn't mean he has no power.

Prove he has power...

Well, let's not forget about the fifty million people in Afghanistan and Iraq that have been recently liberated

HAHAHAHAHAHA! Yes, Afganistan is such a FREE country, where you can get executed for converitng to Christianity, and it's so lovely to live in, with those lovely shacks and caves people live in there. Yep, we did a good job freeing that country.

and Iraq

When I think free and prosperous, I think Iraq.

that have been recently liberated and are now being protected

Afganies and Iraqis live safe lives...

after they've been fed for decades, all done by the U.S.

After they've been fed for decades by the US? What?

Or the dozens, if not hundreds, of other countries and regions that are kept from starvation and/or slaughter by U.S.

What regions are being kept by starvation by the US? Much of the world is starving, and much of the world is being slaughtered, where's the US helping them? Who have we kept from being slaughtered and killed? Who's eating because of the US?

will alone, because of their own people, invasions, or natural disasters. This includes Mexico.

How has America helped Mexico? All America does is **** over Mexico.

-------------------------------------------------------

No, you haven't. You said you've 'read articles'. You said you've got proof. Yet I've seen none of it.

I listed the articles. Articles from well-respected news sources don't count as sources?

No, I have no concrete proof

Then this discussion is over. Sorry, no proof, no claims being true, no nothing. How do I know you're not making up the rest of the stuff you say then? Seriously, if there is no proof to back up your claims, then they are just stupid claims.

[Govinda]

I listed the articles. Articles from well-respected news sources don't count as sources?



Then this discussion is over. Sorry, no proof, no claims being true, no nothing. How do I know you're not making up the rest of the stuff you say then? Seriously, if there is no proof to back up your claims, then they are just stupid claims.

Jesus H, girl. I wasn't talking about your racism proof. Your proof that Wiki is acceptable was what I was talking about. I can dredge up proof about my racism theory if you like too, it's an old argument, and I'd have to bugger about with Turnitin to get the guy's name, and I cannot be bothered.

You're good at turning things. But clever quoting can only go so far. You asked me for proof that Wiki wasn't acceptable whilst providing none yourself.

If this discussion ended I wouldn't be sorry. But I'm still interested. What is driving you? A 'win' in a forum doesn't count for anything, and you'll never 'beat' Sasquatch in this 'debate' since he's far smarter than you are (cited wikipedia article 'TFF', 2008). What's keeping you going over this shite though?

I so want to say 'Sorry, discussion like ohhh-verrr, honey!' but that would be childish. It's also almost 4am. Good times.



EDIT:

This is how we edit here, darling. We show it. And we do it when the thread is up to speed. We DO NOT go back and edit previous posts to devalue someone's point, which is what you have deftly done.

You're really trying to make me look a fool, aren't you? Look at all those shiny new sources. You've searched for them, typed them in. WHY? Do you really care? Why go back and edit like that?

On that note, you're almost too good at this. How much of your time do you spend doing this, here and elsewhere?

Also, the Beeb is not the SQA, nor is is JWCFHE, nor is it UCAS, and nor is it all that factual.

It always comes down to this with the internet: GO OUTSIDE MORE OFTEN, PLEASE.

[vevuxking102]

Jesus H, girl. I wasn't talking about your racism proof. Your proof that Wiki is acceptable was what I was talking about.

That's what I am talking about.

You're good at turning things. But clever quoting can only go so far. You asked me for proof that Wiki wasn't acceptable whilst providing none yourself.

But I did provide evidence. I provided links to reliable news and educational research sources, but I guess those don't count.

If this discussion ended I wouldn't be sorry. But I'm still interested. What is driving you? A 'win' in a forum doesn't count for anything, and you'll never 'beat' Sasquatch in this 'debate' since he's far smarter than you are (cited wikipedia article 'TFF', 2008). What's keeping you going over this shite though?

I so want to say 'Sorry, discussion like ohhh-verrr, honey!' but that would be childish. It's also almost 4am. Good times.

No proof=stupid claims.

[Govinda]

Vevux...I'm sorry. This'll have to be the end of our fledgling relationship.

It's not you, it's me. It was me who didn't go back and check to see if you'd edited in new sources to make me look like a blind twat.

I'm sorry it has to end this way. I'll always hold a fond memory of you.

And while we're at it, innate defiency of ethnic minorities! Wanna have a go at my argument on that next? You skipped it before.

[vevuxking102]

Vevux...I'm sorry. This'll have to be the end of our fledgling relationship.

It's not you, it's me. It was me who didn't go back and check to see if you'd edited in new sources to make me look like a blind twat.

I don't think you're a blind twat, I just want you to back up your claims about wikipedia is all.

And while we're at it, innate deficiency of ethnic minorities! Wanna have a go at my argument on that next? You skipped it before.

Oh, god, okay...what is deficient about ethnic minorities? And which ones? In what country? And in what context...? I'm part of a national/ethnic minority here in California, (Mexican) so what's deficient about me?

[Govinda]

Are you pretending to require spoonfeeding? I'm starting to think you are. Because you are far too good at this.

I'd like to thank you for entertaining me this morning. You're far more interesting than television at this hour.

I give up. You're right about absolutely everything and have proof for it all.

Except Christianty, which you believe in minus proof from either the BBC or Wikipedia.

You are inherently crap because you're part Mexican. Obviously, that's fact. Take that at face value in a quote and flyyyy with it honey, that's why I typed it.

Night night

[Pete]

Honestly, where is this thread going?

I've been debating whether or not to read through the quotes and quotes of quotes, or simply smash my head into my desk trying to read pages 4 and 5.

Vevuxking, Pablo Honey stated how Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. She said that papers would be failed if they cited Wikipedia. There's absolutely no reason to assume that she's lying, because who would lie about something like that?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/21/ed...wikipedia.html

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/gener..._wikipedia.php

In case her personal experience isn't enough, here are two articles about it.


As for "only Mexicans" being criticized for not learning English. I'm calling bullshit on that one. I live in an area full of Russians, who came here after the fall of the USSR. None of them know English, and none of them care to learn, except for a handful of children and some teenagers. No adults give a damn to learn English, as they have signs in Cyrillic Russian all over the place. I can't read them, and when I go into the stores, to maybe pick up a Babka (type of cake) for my family, I get dirty looks and stares. I should not have to be made to feel unwelcome in my own neighborhood. However, the main point is that these people demand that Americans adapt to their system, which is bullshit. You don't go into someone else's house and make them follow your rules; you shut the hell up and do as your told. If someone came into my home, telling me what to do and making demands, I'd kick them the hell out.

Mexicans, Koreans and Chinese are the same way. Granted, the Asians ARE making the effort to learn the language, and more often than not do.

My proof for this is personal experience. You get that by going outside every now and then.

[vevuxking102]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/21/ed...wikipedia.html

Here's what I found when I actually read the article:

"The discussion raised by the Middlebury policy has been covered by student newspapers at the University of Pennsylvania and Tufts, among others. The Middlebury Campus, the student weekly, included an opinion article last week by Chandler Koglmeier that accused the history department of introducing “the beginnings of censorship.”

Other students call the move unnecessary. Keith Williams, a senior majoring in economics, said students “understand that Wikipedia is not a responsible source, that it hasn’t been thoroughly vetted.” Yet he said, “I personally use it all the time.”

Jason Mittell, an assistant professor of American studies and film and media culture at Middlebury, said he planned to take the pro-Wikipedia side in the campus debate. “The message that is being sent is that ultimately they see it as a threat to traditional knowledge,” he said. “I see it as an opportunity. What does that mean for traditional scholarship? Does traditional scholarship lose value?”

For his course “Media Technology and Cultural Change,” which began this month, Professor Mittell said he would require his students to create a Wikipedia entry as well as post a video on YouTube, create a podcast and produce a blog for the course.

Another Middlebury professor, Thomas Beyer, of the Russian department, said, “I guess I am not terribly impressed by anyone citing an encyclopedia as a reference point, but I am not against using it as a starting point.”

And yes, back at Wikipedia, the Jesuits are still credited as supporting the Shimabara Rebellion. "

What the actual wikipedia article says:

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

One history class banning the site for references on one subject is not proof of it's overall unreliability and inaccuracy.

"http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/generalnews/display.var.1961862.0.lecturer_bans_students_from_ using_google_and_wikipedia.php"

Wow, a lecturer bans both Google and Wikipedia? That's proof of...?

"A lecturer has criticised students for relying on websites like Google and Wikipedia to do their thinking for them.

Professor Tara Brabazon, from the University of Brighton, said too many young people around the world were taking the easy option when asked to do research and simply repeating the first things they found on internet searches.

She has dubbed the phenomenon "The University of Google"."

The person banned them because she believed it was making the students lazy, not because the sources are unreliable.

The multiple sources I gave actually relied on sound statistics, and were about the reliability of information on certain subjects on wikipedia, not about someones opinion on them. Geesh.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061127-8296.html

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2005/...iew051215.html

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

http://mashable.com/2007/08/08/wikipedia-color-coding/

http://trust.cse.ucsc.edu/

As for "only Mexicans" being criticized for not learning English. I'm calling bullshit on that one. I live in an area full of Russians, who came here after the fall of the USSR. None of them know English, and none of them care to learn, except for a handful of children and some teenagers. No adults give a damn to learn English, as they have signs in Cyrillic Russian all over the place. I can't read them, and when I go into the stores, to maybe pick up a Babka (type of cake) for my family, I get dirty looks and stares. I should not have to be made to feel unwelcome in my own neighborhood. However, the main point is that these people demand that Americans adapt to their system, which is bullshit. You don't go into someone else's house and make them follow your rules; you shut the hell up and do as your told. If someone came into my home, telling me what to do and making demands, I'd kick them the hell out.

I don't know you, nor do I know of the situation in your neighborhood, so I just have to take your word for the story. The fact is, Southern California is filled with Asians who don't know English and make little effort to learn it, mostly eldery asians, and the schools here speak and teach in Vietnamese, yet no one complains about that. Everyone however, complains about the Spanish. That dreadful non-white language (wait, it comes from Europe...) that is so degenerate and so offensive.

My proof for this is personal experience. You get that by going outside every now and then.

I don't know you, so your personal experience means nothing to me.

[Walter Sobchak]

I will admit that I haven't read more than the opening sentence of each post for the last few pages or so.

With that said, I love this. I am no longer Public Enemy #1!

Keep fighting the good fight, vev. And when you get to two warnings, wait it out.

[vevuxking102]

Um..okay. I don't want to fight anyone, or offend anyone, I was just presenting the facts and my point of view. But I guess I have riled people up. Someone said via Private Messaging that I should be a Sociologist...

[OceanEyes28]

Keeeeep oooooon tooooopiiiiiiic.

A little debate on source validity within the main debate is fine, but let's not hijack the original topic (ahhh racism) with it. It hasn't gotten bad, but I'm trying to make sure I don't wake up tomorrow to five more posts about Wikipedia.

And James, have your fun, but don't derail the thread. I'm sure you can work your magic and pull that off somehow.

Okay, be decent to one another and enjoy your racism thread. Thank you!

P.S. Vevux, I'm not sure if you're here to make friends or not, but I tend to hold out hope for most members until they give me a reason not to. If you can get past the fact that I'm an evil Protestant (), you can PM me anytime.

[vevuxking102]

I'm sorry for contributing to the derailing of this thread, and if I've been too confrontational and offensive, I apologize for that too. Sorry.

[Jin]

I'm sorry for contributing to the derailing of this thread, and if I've been too confrontational and offensive, I apologize for that too. Sorry.

Prove it.



Oh right, the topic. What more is there to say really? Pete has summed it up pretty well. Until someone of an opposing opinion has something to say other than "proof?", there's really nowhere for this to go.

[vevuxking102]

Sorry, you can't prove a sentiment towards a topic on a forum.

[che]

I like to call people racist when I don't really know if they are or not. That way I can gauge they're reaction and make an uneducated guess one way or another. It's like a minigame in life for me.

[Rydia Lover]

My bottom line is - everyone is human. For ****'s sake, I'm tired of people going "I'm part this part that and therefore, my loyalties lie there. Even though I've never been to these countries."

im not quite sure where your going with that, im american, born and raised and proud to be one. but that doesnt mean i dont take pride in the italian blood i have. does that some how make me racist?

and i actually visited italy twice, just last summer.

[Mike Piatza]

Anybody who thinks that is racist is an idiot. It's a matter of preference. I don't have a problem with inter-racial relationships, though.

You know you're speaking some bull right? How is placing someone inferior in any terms of any field to someone else based on race, not racist?

[Rocky]

I <3 necroposting, let's quote different people and ask them to explain themselves when they're not even active members and haven't posted in the thread in years!

[Unlucky Rufus]

I <3 necroposting, let's quote different people and ask them to explain themselves when they're not even active members and haven't posted in the thread in years!

I think thats a valid point

[Block]

As the saying goes, some people need to 'harden the **** up'.

That's a saying?

I've never been accused of being racist and I drop the N bomb regularly with black friends, call anyone (including myself) with curly hair a ****, and often have derogatory things to say about people of any race out there. For me though it's all in fun and I guess the people I say these things to realize that and appreciate them as humorous. Lucky me I guess.

[Josh_R]

I call people racist all the time, I know that most are not, but it is funny to see peoples reaction when they are called it.

[Jin]

I dislike the entire race of necromancers. Now that Chad has revealed himself to be one, I must dislike him as well. Don't take this to mean that I did not dislike him before.

Double Negative'd!