Media Ignores Higher Black on White Crime Rate for PC Crap

24567

Comments

  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,831
    NMyTree wrote:
    The statistical information came from the FBI and various Jusitces. Not from the New Century Foundation. The New Century Foundation simply did a produced a piece on it. No different from FOX, CNN and MSNBC broadcasting the same news story.

    The conclusion I can draw here, is different than the conclusion you sling at CW. Although, similar in some ways.
    As mammasan mentioned, it's not the stats - it's the use.

    As for correlation, I stand by my poverty argument. There's no denying that poverty is rampant among African Americans. If I had time, I'd get into a long discussion on why that is. But when you post an article that says "lookit what all thim black folks do" I tend to overlook any - um - altruistic motives.
  • NMyTreeNMyTree Posts: 2,412
    inmytree wrote:
    no need to get pissy, little one...I just asked a question...

    I have another...let's say the media reports this...what then...? what's your solution other than having the media report this information...?

    In fairness, CW was attacked by pissyness from the beginning of this thread.

    Why aren't you calling out cornnifer and RainDog for their pissy, little attacks? Why only CW?

    After all, their pissy, little attacks completely ignored the facts and attacked the messenger.
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,831
    NMyTree wrote:
    Haha! A poor attempt at diversion.
    No, I think we've hit at something here. Why wouldn't white people matter? In fact, where's the evidence that they don't?
  • surferdudesurferdude Posts: 2,057
    RainDog wrote:
    How about this? Violent crime has more to do with poverty than with race. However, when you focus on the race aspect of it - and back it up with information from a racist organization - people draw conclusions. Logical ones at that.
    think you are right about crime being related to poverty rate. But would you have felt the need to pipe in if the article only mentioned black on black or white on black crime?

    And what a retarded way to look at crime. Why can't it just be victim and criminal?
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • cornnifercornnifer Posts: 2,130
    NMyTree wrote:
    The statistics came from the very same FBI and Justice surveys.


    The statistics weren't created, conjured-up or made up by the New Century Foundation. You know that.

    A fairly simple concept, if you ask me.

    Apparently not. You still havn't told me how i "exposed myself". Exposed myself as what exactly?
    "When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
  • RainDog wrote:
    How about this? Violent crime has more to do with poverty than with race.

    Because you say so. That's your opinion though and it's certainly not factual by any means.

    Care to compare poor whites to poor blacks? Would you like to find out how similar their crime rates really are? Since you broached this topic, let's discuss it!!

    24% of the poor population of America is black. 40% of violent crimes are committed by blacks. If violent crime had more to do with poverty than race, 24% of violent crimes would be committed by blacks.

    There's a 99.9% certainty that you have no effing idea how to respond to that.
    All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
    -Enoch Powell
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,831
    NMyTree wrote:
    In fairness, CW was attacked by pissyness from the beginning of this thread.

    Why aren't you calling out cornnifer and RainDog for their pissy, little attacks? Why only CW?

    After all, their pissy, little attacks completely ignored the facts and attacked the messenger.
    It's always hard to hear people when they speak through a hood - and there's no denying that often the messenger matters.
  • NMyTreeNMyTree Posts: 2,412
    RainDog wrote:
    As mammasan mentioned, it's not the stats - it's the use.

    As for correlation, I stand by my poverty argument. There's no denying that poverty is rampant among African Americans. If I had time, I'd get into a long discussion on why that is. But when you post an article that says "lookit what all thim black folks do" I tend to overlook any - um - altruistic motives.


    Why? Certainly you have on problem with threads, posts and articles which says " look at what all them evil white devils do".

    What's the difference, other than the color of skin?

    Bottom line, the facts are what matter. Ignoring the facts in favor of " it's the use" indicates a not so honorable or honest agenda on your part.
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,831
    Because you say so. That's your opinion though and it's certainly not factual by any means.

    Care to compare poor whites to poor blacks? Would you like to find out how similar their crime rates really are? Since you broached this topic, let's discuss it!!

    24% of the poor population of America is black. 40% of violent crimes are committed by blacks. If violent crime had more to do with poverty than race, 24% of violent crimes would be committed by blacks.

    There's a 99.9% certainty that you have no effing idea how to respond to that.
    Then here's the .1. Population density. Poor whites are usually rural and spread out. Poor blacks are usually urban and stacked on top of each other.
  • mammasanmammasan Posts: 5,656
    I think RainDog is on to something. I would love to see if there are stats that reflect the income level of criminals across racial barriers. I, like RainDog, believe that criminal behavior is more condusive to lower income population not necessarily a certain race. Unfortunetly the lower income neighborhoods are mostly populated by minorities like blacks and hispanics.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,831
    NMyTree wrote:
    Why? Certainly you have on problem with threads, posts and articles which says " look at what all them evil white devils do".

    What's the difference, other than the color of skin?
    Now you're making assumptions. Larger ones at that. You apparently aren't certain of anything I have a problem with.
    NMyTree wrote:
    Bottom line, the facts are what matter. Ignoring the facts in favor of " it's the use" indicates a not so honorable or honest agenda on your part.
    Simply because I addressed the use doesn't mean I ignored the facts. Nazis use facts all the time. Are you saying their use of them doesn't matter?
  • NMyTreeNMyTree Posts: 2,412
    RainDog wrote:
    It's always hard to hear people when they speak through a hood - and there's no denying that often the messenger matters.

    It seems you wear a hood of your own. You're no different. You defend blacks regardless of the facts. Again, the facts are what matter.

    Once the facts speak, the messenger is irrelevent. Unless of course, one has a seperate agenda, all together; as you do.

    You're not a part of the solution, you're a part of the problem.
  • NMyTreeNMyTree Posts: 2,412
    RainDog wrote:
    Then here's the .1. Population density. Poor whites are usually rural and spread out. Poor blacks are usually urban and stacked on top of each other.

    Really? Is that so?

    Why don't you come down to North Carolina for a visit and I'll take you for a little ride. We'll visit the prodominately white trailer parks, the prodominately white apartment complexes ( welfare apartments) and the prodominately white poor neighborhoods.

    Then tell me how they're not stacked on top of each other.
  • RainDog wrote:
    Then here's the .1. Population density. Poor whites are usually rural and spread out. Poor blacks are usually urban and stacked on top of each other.

    See, you are simply unable to explain the 16% difference between 40% violent crime perpetrated by blacks and the 24% black makeup of the total population. You need to then jump into "well they're stacked on top of eachother!! WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF YOU WERE STACKED ON TOP OF SOMEONE ELSE??"

    Please. Rational dialogue only.
    All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
    -Enoch Powell
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,831
    NMyTree wrote:
    It seems you wear a hood of your own. You're no different. You arfe defend blacks regardless of the facts. Again, the facts are what matter.

    Once the facts speak, the messenger is irrelevent. Unless of course, one has a seperate agenda, all together; as you do.

    You're not a part of the solution, you're a part of the problem.
    I've said a number of times that this doesn't have to do with race - black, white, red, whatever.

    And, yes, the messenger is relevent. If you don't think so, you haven't looked at history in any detail.
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,569
    inmytree wrote:
    ok, let's say the stats are 100% correct...

    what's the point...?

    My immediate assumption was this:

    This is a measurement of how class inequality causes crime. I don't mean "oppression" against "Blacks". I mean oppression against the poor. This is a result of being poor, not being black.

    To pull a number out of my ass 90% of all crimes, black/white/hispanic male/female, are commited by the impoverished. There happens to be a higher percentage of the black population living in poverty, even though, there are probably more total whites impoverished, the percentages are different.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • cornnifercornnifer Posts: 2,130
    NMyTree wrote:
    In fairness, CW was attacked by pissyness from the beginning of this thread.

    Why aren't you calling out cornnifer and RainDog for their pissy, little attacks? Why only CW?

    After all, their pissy, little attacks completely ignored the facts and attacked the messenger.

    The "messenger" cited a WHITE SUPREMACIST ORGANIZATION for fuck's sake!

    All this talk of "stats are stats" is pure bullshit anyway. The stats if they are in fact accurate (considering the source i'm simply not convinced. Point me to the FBI sponsored information that says the same thing, not some racist, white supremacist, rednecked cocksucking organization who CLAIMS to get their info straight from the FBI), it is completely void of context. First of all, it only considers INTER-RACIAL violent crime. Also it completely ignores any type of motivation. When you consider the fact that whites compromise over 75% of the national population whereas blacks are still under 20%, obviously if you play the law of averages, completely random, INTER-RACIAL violence is going to trend more towards Black-on-White moreso than White-on-Black. Its all random. Bottom line is when you walk out your front door, you are much more likely to get your ass kicked by another white guy. Throw in the fact that as was aforementioned, socio-economics and poverty play a much larger role in determining offenders and victims in these cases than do race and it becomes even more simple. Who has the money and who doesn't. Don't give me any of this "stats-are-stats" bullshit. These particular stats, are more than likely exaggerated, and definitely offered without absolutely any context by a douchebag organization in a piss-poor attempt to push a racist agenda. Why do you suppose they offered these statistics? The same fuckin reason CW decided to post this bullshit here. Save the bullshit rhetoric.
    "When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
  • inmytreeinmytree Posts: 4,741
    NMyTree wrote:
    In fairness, CW was attacked by pissyness from the beginning of this thread.

    Why aren't you calling out cornnifer and RainDog for their pissy, little attacks? Why only CW?

    After all, their pissy, little attacks completely ignored the facts and attacked the messenger.

    well since you're "fairness" monitor today, I'll answer your question, the reason I am calling out CW is because he was pissy toward me in his response to a question I had...I hope that makes sense...

    anyhoo, since your the fairness monitor today, I expect you to call out CW as well as others...that's how it works, right...?
  • NMyTree wrote:
    Really? Is that so?

    Why don't you come down to North Carolina for a visit and I'll take you for a little ride. We'll visit the prodominately white trailer parks, the prodominately white apartment complexes ( welfare apartments) and the prodominately white poor neighborhoods.

    Then tell me how they're not stacked on top of each other.

    Anecdotal evidence
  • cornnifer wrote:
    The "messenger" cited a WHITE SUPREMACIST ORGANIZATION for fuck's sake!

    All this talk of "stats are stats" is pure bullshit anyway. The stats if they are in fact accurate (considering the source i'm simply not convinced. Point me to the FBI sponsored information that says the same thing, not some racist, white supremacist, rednecked cocksucking organization who CLAIMS to get their info straight from the FBI), it is completely void of context. First of all, it only considers INTER-RACIAL violent crime. Also it completely ignores any type of motivation. When you consider the fact that whites compromise over 75% of the national population whereas blacks are still under 20%, obviously if you play the law of averages, completely random, INTER-RACIAL violence is going to trend more towards Black-on-White moreso than White-on-Black. Its all random. Bottom line is when you walk out your front door, you are much more likely to get your ass kicked by another white guy. Throw in the fact that as was aforementioned, socio-economics and poverty play a much larger role in determining offenders and victims in these cases than do race and it becomes even more simple. Who has the money and who doesn't. Don't give me any of this "stats-are-stats" bullshit. These particular stats, are more than likely exaggerated, and definitely offered without absolutely any context by a douchebag organization in a piss-poor attempt to push a racist agenda. Why do you suppose they offered these statistics? The same fuckin reason CW decided to post this bullshit here. Save the bullshit rhetoric.

    Bullshitbullshitbullshit.

    You haven't said anything, pointed to any online resource, or made any significant argument yet.

    Bullshitbullshitbullshit.

    All drivel that you've had pounded into your head through liberal indoctrination.

    OO BETTER NOT NOTICE RACIAL DIFFERENCES IN CRIME OR THAT MAKES YOU A RACIST.

    You're a liberal hack, not a free thinker.
    All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
    -Enoch Powell
  • inmytreeinmytree Posts: 4,741
    Because you say so. That's your opinion though and it's certainly not factual by any means.

    Care to compare poor whites to poor blacks? Would you like to find out how similar their crime rates really are? Since you broached this topic, let's discuss it!!

    24% of the poor population of America is black. 40% of violent crimes are committed by blacks. If violent crime had more to do with poverty than race, 24% of violent crimes would be committed by blacks.

    There's a 99.9% certainty that you have no effing idea how to respond to that.


    so, what's your solution...? do you have one...?
  • surferdudesurferdude Posts: 2,057
    RainDog wrote:
    I've said a number of times that this doesn't have to do with race - black, white, red, whatever.

    And, yes, the messenger is relevent. If you don't think so, you haven't looked at history in any detail.
    The messenger should not matter, only the validity of the message. When facts are presented it's pointless to argue the validity of the messenger, sorry but that's a little baby's game. What you can argue is if the facts being presented are releveant to the discussion. In this case you argue that the skin color facts just show correlation and not causation, and that causation is primarily due to socie-economic factors. I think you'd be a lot farther ahead sticking to this than attackig the messenger.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • NMyTreeNMyTree Posts: 2,412
    RainDog wrote:
    Now you're making assumptions. Larger ones at that. You apparently aren't certain of anything I have a problem with.

    Simply because I addressed the use doesn't mean I ignored the facts. Nazis use facts all the time. Are you saying their use of them doesn't matter?

    Well, since you are so concerned with "the use of " and this does appear to be such a sticking point for you.......enough of a point for you to conjur up the Nazis. Why aren't you equally disturbed as to "the use of" by the Washington Post, and the fact they (the Washington Post) ommitted/ignored/failed to publish the Black on White crime statistics, which came from the FBI and Justices surveys?

    Don't you find that to be irresponsible and biased reporting?
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,831
    NMyTree wrote:
    Really? Is that so?

    Why don't you come down to North Carolina for a visit and I'll take you for a little ride. We'll visit the prodominately white trailer parks, the prodominately white apartment complexes ( welfare apartments) and the prodominately white poor neighborhoods.

    Then tell me how they're not stacked on top of each other.
    And I'll take you through a stroll of the poor black neighborhoods of any U.S. city. Make sure you bring a calculator.

    Now, I won't deny that I've attempted to deconstruct the information posted. However, I've also added my opinion on why these facts exist. But I've yet to hear your opinion. So, please, elaborate.
  • Bullshitbullshitbullshit.

    You haven't said anything, pointed to any online resource, or made any significant argument yet.

    Bullshitbullshitbullshit.

    All drivel that you've had pounded into your head through liberal indoctrination.

    OO BETTER NOT NOTICE RACIAL DIFFERENCES IN CRIME OR THAT MAKES YOU A RACIST.

    You're a liberal hack, not a free thinker.

    I thought this was a "rational dialog only" thread......
  • mammasanmammasan Posts: 5,656
    I thought this was a "rational dialog only" thread......

    That's a common misconception her on the Moving Train. Very few threads contain rational dialog.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,831
    surferdude wrote:
    The messenger should not matter, only the validity of the message. When facts are presented it's pointless to argue the validity of the messenger, sorry but that's a little baby's game. What you can argue is if the facts being presented are releveant to the discussion. In this case you argue that the skin color facts just show correlation and not causation, and that causation is primarily due to socie-economic factors. I think you'd be a lot farther ahead sticking to this than attackig the messenger.
    Perhaps it shouldn't matter, but it does.

    Do you believe in evolution?
    When you look at history, do you think there was any problem with Hitler's use of evolutionary study? I mean, he was just a messanger after all.
  • mammasan wrote:
    That's a common misconception her on the Moving Train. Very few threads contain rational dialog.

    Tell that to CorporateWhore, hes the supposed policeman of rationality
  • RainDog wrote:
    Now, I won't deny that I've attempted to deconstruct the information posted. However, I've also added my opinion on why these facts exist. But I've yet to hear your opinion. So, please, elaborate.

    And you've done a piss poor job of deconstructing it too! You didn't even respond to the 16% discrepency regarding poor blacks.

    Blacks account for 24% of the poor population of america. 40% of violent crime is perpetrated by blacks. If poverty were the main cause of violent crime, closer to 24% of it would be perpetrated by blacks.

    Try to respond instead of talking about platitudes on stacking.
    All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
    -Enoch Powell
  • NMyTreeNMyTree Posts: 2,412
    cornnifer wrote:
    The "messenger" cited a WHITE SUPREMACIST ORGANIZATION for fuck's sake!

    All this talk of "stats are stats" is pure bullshit anyway. The stats if they are in fact accurate (considering the source i'm simply not convinced. Point me to the FBI sponsored information that says the same thing, not some racist, white supremacist, rednecked cocksucking organization who CLAIMS to get their info straight from the FBI), it is completely void of context. First of all, it only considers INTER-RACIAL violent crime. Also it completely ignores any type of motivation. When you consider the fact that whites compromise over 75% of the national population whereas blacks are still under 20%, obviously if you play the law of averages, completely random, INTER-RACIAL violence is going to trend more towards Black-on-White moreso than White-on-Black. Its all random. Bottom line is when you walk out your front door, you are much more likely to get your ass kicked by another white guy. Throw in the fact that as was aforementioned, socio-economics and poverty play a much larger role in determining offenders and victims in these cases than do race and it becomes even more simple. Who has the money and who doesn't. Don't give me any of this "stats-are-stats" bullshit. These particular stats, are more than likely exaggerated, and definitely offered without absolutely any context by a douchebag organization in a piss-poor attempt to push a racist agenda. Why do you suppose they offered these statistics? The same fuckin reason CW decided to post this bullshit here. Save the bullshit rhetoric.

    I think, when you use the term "cocksucking organization" within this context, it is a discriminatory slur against women and homosexual men.

    I'm sensitive that way.
Sign In or Register to comment.