-->
@TWS1405
Enjoy your evening, sir.
Why are so many resilient to fact-based truth regarding black criminality?
Posts
Total:
427
-->
@Athias
Do social welfare transfers mitigate poverty? Does it serve your point if those who receive social welfare are still poor?
less poor is less wrong
more poor is more wronger
-->
@3RU7AL
less poor is less wrongmore poor is more wronger
Elaborate.
-->
@Athias
one can still be considered "poor" without being "desperate"
-->
@3RU7AL
one can still be considered "poor" without being "desperate"
Exactly.
-->
@TWS1405
So firstly - apologies for the delay. Making a clear, detailed and reasoned response to a disjointed set multiple post replies, takes far more time than offering a minimal objection, denial, “nuh-uh” that offers no real argument.
[They] deny that those truths as being remotely attributable to black Americans
Let’s applaud the fact that you’re mostly agreeing with my main premise. That the difference isn’t that we disagree with the data, but it’s attribution.
In order to justify that you didn’t start off in a false premise - you’re saying that when you said “they deny facts”, or are “resilient to fact based truth” you didn’t mean they deny facts, and didn’t mean they are resilient to fact based truths - but have different ideas about attribution. When you cite multiple pieces of crime data - saying that it doesn’t lie - your sharing it in the complete knowledge I accept that data completely?
What you’re doing, in your haste, is throwing the baby out with the bathwater - you clearly had a false premise, and to try and defend it, you make everything you’ve said thus far sound kinda dumb as a result.
Me: Data does not lie, [but all the ways you can interpret the data can].You: “Here is your problem, I have not disclosed any dataset, source of data, etc. for you to evaluate to come to this patently fallacious assertion”
So, I’ve already covered that the statement is a gaslightingly false lie of epic proportions in post 268 - you have given plenty of data throughout. In this single sentence, you make two other hugely false claims.
Firstly you suggest that the “conclusion”, that data can be misinterpreted, or that false conclusions can be drawn data, or that how one uses data can biased - is a “fallacious assertion.” This is laughable: my conclusion here is really just a description of basic formal logic. Rejecting basic logical truths it is absurd.
Secondly - you suggest that this conclusion is drawn from your argument - it’s clearly not a conclusion, leave alone one based on your argument - but an unambiguously general statement - not based on any specific data you raised, but pointing out the limits of veracity that can be drawn on data itself.
Negative tone and language? Please. Grow up. You cannot “hear” tone, and my language is straight forward. Grow thicker skin.
Huh? What does having thick or not think skin have to do with anything I said? Do you think my accusation applies to my feelings? Or to me?
This is really a “nuh-uh” response - taking an argument and explanation; and simply rejecting without reason. This is made more problematic given that I did actually clarify the specifics of what I meant:
You can absolutely “hear” tone in many cases, and language absolutely matters in terms of the conclusions and point you try and make.
If you scored low on an IQ test: that would be data. Saying that you were less intelligent would be language. Saying that you were stupid is tone. The data doesn’t lie - but that wouldn’t mean calling you stupid was accurate in this scenario.
Given that you regularly seem to use words, phrases and language implying negative value on black people; and that you straight up use phrasing and language that hugely implies that you black people are, in some specific ways lesser - such as talking about white people not moaning about their own slavery, or talking about the lack of pride, etc. This is all tone and language.
So in this “nuh-uh” reply - where you make literally no argument other than to assert that I am wrong - seems to be suggesting that in a post where you complain about being called a racist - we are somehow not allowed to talk about the of the key elements of statements that allow us to determine racism?
No, [proof of my conclusion] is from the data. If a black man commits a crime and both the forensics and the witness affirm that, then clearly, they did it.
Starting off with an aside, as I broadly agree with the data - the above actually demonstrates the issue quite nicely. The data only shows conviction rates. Does it show how many times witness lies, there is minimal or circumstantial forensics? Conviction data shows only convictions - not guilt - guilt is inferred from that data. Data relating to wrongful convictions demonstrates that conviction data isn’t necessarily data of actual guilt. This is my point, and one you inadvertently demonstrate.
Secondly, this is another “nuh-uh” reply. One that isn’t really talking about the same thing. You are talking about the data - still - I was talking about the conclusions you infer from it; talking about lack of pride; accusations that whites didn’t moan that they were enslaved, concluding it’s “black culture”, or that blacks don’t have pride any more - the negative language, injecting the lesser value - that doesn’t come from the crime stats; that’s added by you.
Your response here is exactly what I keep saying - you appear to have difficulty separating the data, with the conclusions you draw from it: because in a critique of your conclusions, you again - point to the data…
Recall - this whole exchange came about with me saying the disagreement is about why there are racial differences in crime rate - which was followed by you asserting there were racial differences in the crime rate. Why does citing a stat demonstrate the reason for that stat?
Like I said - you conflate the what’s with the whys - and thus far nothing you have said gives me confidence that you even understand the difference
I can accept [your definition of racism] as the basic information of racism.
Ok
This definition [of white supremacy] I cannot accept how worded
Ok - let’s call mine diet white supremacy then.
Also, it doesn’t matter how many times you claim I am conflating X Y and Z; it won’t make it any truer. Especially without any object fact based data substantiating that claim.
How exactly can one substantiate the claim that you are conflating data with a conclusion you draw from the data with “fact based data”, what statistics can I cite to show your argument conflates two things? What external source can I link here that will demonstrate that you’re confusing two things? This is absurd! It’s like you’re just picking from a list of objections you can make without any attempt to show those objections are valid
Recall - I suggest you are conflating data with the conclusions you are drawing from it. Specifically - I suggested we disagree that on deeper explanations of the racial differences in data - you responded by citing that racial differences exist - as if that proved your explanations.
The reality is, I’ve demonstrated what I mean. I’ve pointed out your various conclusions that are inferences of the data, and pointed to propensity to cite the data your inferences are supported by as justification for the inferences.
That one does not prove the other is a matter of logic - specifically pointing out that you have not supported your conclusion does not need me to supply “fact based data” - that’s not how an argument works.
No, you cannot draw racist or white supremacist conclusions from fact-based truths. Truth does NOT equal racism or white supremacy
This is another “nuh-uh” - no justification. Just foot stamping.
I made an argument, with a justification and logical explanation in my previous post to explain how you can - denying it’s true is not an argument.
Of course you can; I explained why in my last post. Draw value or worth conclusions from a data point:
You take something is true; like blacks commit more crime - and you use this to infer a value. Blacks are just worse than whites because they commit more crime. One is a fact, the other is a value statement that pulls in value assumptions about blackness. There. I made a truth racist.
-->
@TWS1405
It is common knowledge that fatherlessness is a root cause of criminality among young black men. Moreover, the FBI UCR, DOJ, BJS, and NCVS..
Again - another “nuh-uh” response that completely evade the point.
How exactly does citing data prove that conclusions you draw from data are valid? How does citing the UCR or the FBI, demonstrate the conclusions you draw from their data is justified and valid? That is the specific point I made that you’re responding to, and your answer is unrelated to it.
Indeed your response is just repeating the same error I pointed out again and again - instead of showing it is not an error.
Even take your claim about fatherlessness. It’s a key predictor - but it’s not the over-aching causal factor - given that crime rates have halved, but fatherless rates have climbed - that the US have the highest fatherlessness rates in the world - but not the highest crime rates. Incarceration rates for blacks is about 7 times higher than whites (1/106 vs 1/15) - despite having rates of 55% vs 21% (~2.6x) living without one parent. This is not to mention attribution of cause of that fatherlessness rate.
It’s not the data that is the problem, it’s the inferences you draw from it.
See, here is a perfect example where you claim my position is not supported by the data without giving me any data to the contrary.
Again - a boiler plate “nuh-uh”.
Please explain how it’s possible for me to provide data, links, or external information that shows you are saying stuff - but not providing support for it?
I am pointing out a deficiency in your argument where you haven’t provided data - that’s not something I can cite external links to.
And then again - how can I disprove something you have claimed multiple times that you haven’t even provided!
Recall however, that I’m pointing out that comparisons you are drawing - pride, determination, etc - are not supported by any data you’ve cited. You went on to post a bunch of links - none of which showed any data that supports your contention of pride and determination changing either.
This is specifically the issue - you’ve made negative accusations: and haven’t supported them with data you claimed to have.
No, we would not. You clearly do not know much about slavery, historically speaking that is.
I didn’t say that white slavery didn’t exist - I suggested that if whites were in exactly the same position - how they would be affected would likely be similar. So the nature of your reply is wholly misunderstanding the point
Given that whites having been slaves doesn’t result in the exact same position - your link blasting means little. For example, white slaves weren’t a member of an effective racist industrial ethnostate for hundreds of years in which they were enslaved, beaten, deemed inferior; freed: then subjected to systematic oppression by the state due to their race for the next 100 years, then for another 30 years of economic oppression based on their race.
But saying this; I think you said the quiet part loud:
There are no historical references to whites bitching and moaning about their enslavement by blacks as blacks in America to present day
So let’s ignore attitudes towards the Moores and Islamic caliphates - which Europe totally never fought any wars against:
This statement clearly demonstrates your prejudice.
That you consider complaints about the impacts of racism and slavery as “bitching and moaning” - and that your presenting white reaction as more positive than black reaction clearly draws a value implication that the blacks are just bitching and moaning, and implying whites just sucked it up, or let it slide.
This hugely negative implication here is just plain overt racism.
Me: That’s kind of the point I’m making; we all have to take individual responsibility for our actions, we all have to be held properly accountable for our misdeeds; but it is an absolute and undeniable fact that our thinking, behaviour and our decision making are hugely influenced and shaped by external factors outside our control. When there are trends in external factors - there are associated trends in the population.You: link without context.
My argument is that our behaviours are heavily influenced and shaped by factors outside all of our control; and trends in external factors mean trends in the population - you do not object to this, you offer no counter argument: you even agree with it in your section about external factors.
You don’t explain what the link is for, what argument it makes and how it pertains to my position. If you are unable to make an argument on your own, I will gladly accept your concession.
I have no prejudices. I love and appreciate all good law-abiding emotionally and intellectually intelligent people equally; and I hate and loath all unlawful and grossly ignorant people equally.
To paraphrase the 109th rule of Acquisition - proudly processing how unprejudiced you are, and an empty sack is worth the sack.
Here is an example I alluded to towards the beginning of this response. When I engage in these discussions I juxtapose sociology, psychology, social-psychology, juvenile psychology, criminology, and raw data sources (e.g., FBI UCR, DOJ, BJS, NCVS, etc.).
Let’s ignore that I am not 100% sure you know what Juxtapose means given the way you’re using it: I can’t tell whether you’ve done any of those things - as you have just wildly asserted it, rather than actually provide any sort of analysis.
Repeatedly telling me that your argument incorporates all these key points, and incorporates a multitude of different aspects - but never actually providing the argument or the data, generally implies that you don’t actually have a reply. This is yet another “nuh-uh” reply.
You do not know me, my education, my professional experiences, nada. You have absolutely zero frame of reference to come to this asinine absurd position on me, my person, and what you “think” my biases and prejudices are.
I base this off your arguments, the things you say, the links you provide, and the inherent, implicit (and occasionally explicit) things you say. One cannot hide one one feels for long in an argument, and prejudice and bias leaks out - no matter how hard one may try.
To quote(ish) Spock from the old series episode “Mirror, Mirror” - it is easier for a civilized man to act the barbarian, than a barbarian to act like a civilized man”
-->
@TWS1405
On that note, I do not care what you think, feel, or believe. The only thing that matters is what you can prove. And so far, you haven’t proven a lick of anything. You just keep claiming the data doesn’t support my positions without citing any credible sources that prove me wrong, as you claim.
Okay - so this is another “nuh-uh” Arbitrary rejection of my point.
Recall: my point, broadly, is that you are citing a bunch of data, putting forward conclusions that are not supported by that data - drawing value statements from that data that could arguably (or in the case of the above - actually) be called racist - and then when you’re challenged on it - citing the data.
There is so much wrong with this part of your reply here, that dovetail with all the errors you’ve been making thus far in multiple points.
The first thing is that you appear fixated with me giving you links or data in order to show you’re wrong - but I’m not really challenging your data; I’m not saying your statistical description of the world is inaccurate- I am challenging the conclusions you’ve drawn from them; and the logic of you defending your conclusions by citing the accuracy of the data they’re based on
These are critical logical issues, and can be pointed out by logic. How do you expect me to find a link in the internet that proves that you, in this argument on this website are not arguing logically?
Arguments don’t work that way - and as shown above; you’ve managed to “nuh-uh” your way through every logical criticism so as to pretend none exist. And as yet - other than demanding me show data to prove you made a logical error; or otherwise telling me I’m wrong - you haven’t really been able to defend these aspects of your arguments with anything more detailed or specific than some hand waving.
The second issue - and what makes this much more absurd - is that I have actually cited data - together with reasoning why your conclusions are false. I have assuredly provided that justified argument as to why your interpretation is wrong - together with facts and data.
I’ve explained what you cherry picked (specific data that omits other lacking correlations), and why - I’ve cited specific, well accepted, stats that are trivial to Google - in the same way you just spooled off data points with no link. I’ve explained how the wider data points render some of your conclusions overly simplistic, and I’ve pointed out some of your conclusions are simply unsupported.
Your reaction throughout your reply here has not been to defend your position as much as it has been to find some silly reason to deny everything I’ve been saying, this is neither valid, nor particularly coherent.
Recall: my point, broadly, is that you are citing a bunch of data, putting forward conclusions that are not supported by that data - drawing value statements from that data that could arguably (or in the case of the above - actually) be called racist - and then when you’re challenged on it - citing the data.
There is so much wrong with this part of your reply here, that dovetail with all the errors you’ve been making thus far in multiple points.
The first thing is that you appear fixated with me giving you links or data in order to show you’re wrong - but I’m not really challenging your data; I’m not saying your statistical description of the world is inaccurate- I am challenging the conclusions you’ve drawn from them; and the logic of you defending your conclusions by citing the accuracy of the data they’re based on
These are critical logical issues, and can be pointed out by logic. How do you expect me to find a link in the internet that proves that you, in this argument on this website are not arguing logically?
Arguments don’t work that way - and as shown above; you’ve managed to “nuh-uh” your way through every logical criticism so as to pretend none exist. And as yet - other than demanding me show data to prove you made a logical error; or otherwise telling me I’m wrong - you haven’t really been able to defend these aspects of your arguments with anything more detailed or specific than some hand waving.
The second issue - and what makes this much more absurd - is that I have actually cited data - together with reasoning why your conclusions are false. I have assuredly provided that justified argument as to why your interpretation is wrong - together with facts and data.
I’ve explained what you cherry picked (specific data that omits other lacking correlations), and why - I’ve cited specific, well accepted, stats that are trivial to Google - in the same way you just spooled off data points with no link. I’ve explained how the wider data points render some of your conclusions overly simplistic, and I’ve pointed out some of your conclusions are simply unsupported.
Your reaction throughout your reply here has not been to defend your position as much as it has been to find some silly reason to deny everything I’ve been saying, this is neither valid, nor particularly coherent.
No. It is just because they are ignorant and make asinine claims that I am wrong without substantiating that claim. Sort of like what you have been doing.
Another “nuh-uh”. Again - I’m explaining the issue in your argument - you’re repeatedly asserting I’m wrong.
Again, you have not shown/proven a damn thing. It’s all subjective conjecture on your part.
“Nuh-uh”
-->
@TWS1405
ME - Also, there is no racial skew in crime statistics.
This is factually untrue - ironic given that this post is about rejection of facts.
And yet you failed to prove it untrue.
Of the top of my head…
Don’t care what’s off the top of your head, what you think, feel or believe. The only thing that matters is what you can prove. And thus far, you really haven’t proven a damn thing.
As some background here - I said there was a skew in crime data - you denied it. I cited several publicly available, widely accepted statistics - wrongful convictions rates, drug stop data, and police miscounduct.
Did you Google them?
Did you look at the data I’m talking about?
Did you engage in any sort of intellectually honest discussion on those data points?
No - you just denied everything - you even removed the specific examples I used from your quote. This doesn’t strike me as intellectually honest.
Let’s take a moment to point out the constant ridiculous hypocrisy in your replies here for a moment.
You don’t cite links and underlying sources for data - and you claim it’s okay because it’s common knowledge: I do the same; and you claim it’s my opinion, you won’t search, and you pretend the data doesn’t exist.
You claim you haven’t provided any data sets, and no information; and that is apparently okay - and yet the moment I cite a very specific piece of data that demonstrates my point that is easily googled, but no link - I am admonished as not having proven anything.
This is just plain hypocritical intellectual dishonesty. Pick a rule and stick to it.
Like I said - you didn’t bother to Google the examples I used for racial skews, I can cite:
Racial skew on arrests:
https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/02/california-police-black-stops-force
Racial skew on wrongful conviction:
https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Documents/Race_and_Wrongful_Convictions.pdf
Various related racial bias in police miscounduct:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/09/15/police-misconduct-among-leading-causes-false-convictions/5795715002/
There are many other examples of subtle and unsubtle bias against African Americans for similar crimes, everything from charging rate, loading up criminals with more charges, and more likely to end in the death penalty:
https://www.vera.org/downloads/publications/for-the-record-unjust-burden-racial-disparities.pdf
The Bias is across the board; and does inherently skew the numbers, no matter how much you wish to, ironically, you denied this fact-based data.
In addition, I used some broad facts, like mass incarceration timing, and that crime rates have fallen across the board.
Your response was:
Did you Google them?
Did you look at the data I’m talking about?
Did you engage in any sort of intellectually honest discussion on those data points?
No - you just denied everything - you even removed the specific examples I used from your quote. This doesn’t strike me as intellectually honest.
Let’s take a moment to point out the constant ridiculous hypocrisy in your replies here for a moment.
You don’t cite links and underlying sources for data - and you claim it’s okay because it’s common knowledge: I do the same; and you claim it’s my opinion, you won’t search, and you pretend the data doesn’t exist.
You claim you haven’t provided any data sets, and no information; and that is apparently okay - and yet the moment I cite a very specific piece of data that demonstrates my point that is easily googled, but no link - I am admonished as not having proven anything.
This is just plain hypocritical intellectual dishonesty. Pick a rule and stick to it.
Like I said - you didn’t bother to Google the examples I used for racial skews, I can cite:
Racial skew on arrests:
https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/02/california-police-black-stops-force
Racial skew on wrongful conviction:
https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Documents/Race_and_Wrongful_Convictions.pdf
Various related racial bias in police miscounduct:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/09/15/police-misconduct-among-leading-causes-false-convictions/5795715002/
There are many other examples of subtle and unsubtle bias against African Americans for similar crimes, everything from charging rate, loading up criminals with more charges, and more likely to end in the death penalty:
https://www.vera.org/downloads/publications/for-the-record-unjust-burden-racial-disparities.pdf
The Bias is across the board; and does inherently skew the numbers, no matter how much you wish to, ironically, you denied this fact-based data.
In addition, I used some broad facts, like mass incarceration timing, and that crime rates have fallen across the board.
Your response was:
Those are NOT "statistics," that is opinion based off something you read and try to recollect.
Which is just again, rampant unjustified denialism. My stats were spot on:
That crime rates have fallen dramatically since the 1990s.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/11/20/facts-about-crime-in-the-u-s/
Mass incarceration ramped up from around 1975:
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/18613/chapter/4#35
Violent crime rate lead the rise in incarceration:
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-economic-benefits-of-reducing-violent-crime/
All of these key stats are exactly correct - despite you denying them.
In addition, we have stats of out of wedlock births.
https://www.heritage.org/poverty-and-inequality/report/marriage-americas-greatest-weapon-against-child-poverty
Note: you further erode your argument that you have lots of data given the weak data set you present in your defence here, your brookings data was incredibly incomplete - and looks like you found the first link you could Google, rather than a scouring for a decent data source.
That crime rates have fallen dramatically since the 1990s.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/11/20/facts-about-crime-in-the-u-s/
Mass incarceration ramped up from around 1975:
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/18613/chapter/4#35
Violent crime rate lead the rise in incarceration:
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-economic-benefits-of-reducing-violent-crime/
All of these key stats are exactly correct - despite you denying them.
In addition, we have stats of out of wedlock births.
https://www.heritage.org/poverty-and-inequality/report/marriage-americas-greatest-weapon-against-child-poverty
Note: you further erode your argument that you have lots of data given the weak data set you present in your defence here, your brookings data was incredibly incomplete - and looks like you found the first link you could Google, rather than a scouring for a decent data source.
You said “Mass incarceration was a direct result of the 72% out of wedlock birth rates leading to the home to prison pipeline”
Data shows this is factually and blatantly untrue. The data shows that the peak of 72% was in 2008, with high rates plateauing in the mid 1990, before rising again to the peak of 72% - a shade over a decade ago: this is as I said - you denied this fact based data.
This data also shows the current wedlock birth rate is at an all time record low. - the data is as I said - you denied this fact based data.
It also shows that white out of wedlock rates are the same today as they were for blacks in the late 60s - the data is as I said -you denied this fact based data.
This data disproves your contention that mass incarceration was a direct result of the 72% unwed rate - given that mass incarceration took off in 1974, and the unwed rates did not even get close to 72% until the 90s - twenty years later and while there is no drop in wedded birth, there is a massive drop in crime rate. Data disproves your contention.
This data also disproves your contention that these rates are driven by fatherlessness - given that crime rates and fatherlessness rates don’t correlate with violent crime after 1995, and doesn’t correlate well with murder after 1970. The data refutes your position.
This is not to say that fatherlessness is not a factor - it is; but the data is way more complex than that. For example - whites have an incarceration rate of 1/106 (<1%, blacks 1/15 (6.6%) https://nij.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh171/files/images/2019-07/records-figure2-big.jpg despite having out of wedlock rates of about 2-2.5x, the incarceration rate is 6x higher. There’s way more to it than you suggest. Given the above - it could be argued that as the violent crime rate drops of more than 50% can’t be attributed to fatherlessness - it could also be said at least half the crime rate rise wasn’t inherently due to that, likewise out of the remaining incarcerations at least half are due to other differences if you use white incarceration as a baseline - meaning at least 75% of the total incarcerations are potentially attributable to other things. Obviously it’s more complex than that - but like you said: data doesn’t lie: and thus given your argument - my conclusion must be true, right?
In addition, your contention that as well as being driven by fatherlessness - it’s driven by “black culture” - given that what you refer to as “black culture” hasn’t existed until fairly recently, crime has been dropping since what you call “black culture” was around. The data doesn’t even correlate here. The data refutes your position.
This data also shows the current wedlock birth rate is at an all time record low. - the data is as I said - you denied this fact based data.
It also shows that white out of wedlock rates are the same today as they were for blacks in the late 60s - the data is as I said -you denied this fact based data.
This data disproves your contention that mass incarceration was a direct result of the 72% unwed rate - given that mass incarceration took off in 1974, and the unwed rates did not even get close to 72% until the 90s - twenty years later and while there is no drop in wedded birth, there is a massive drop in crime rate. Data disproves your contention.
This data also disproves your contention that these rates are driven by fatherlessness - given that crime rates and fatherlessness rates don’t correlate with violent crime after 1995, and doesn’t correlate well with murder after 1970. The data refutes your position.
This is not to say that fatherlessness is not a factor - it is; but the data is way more complex than that. For example - whites have an incarceration rate of 1/106 (<1%, blacks 1/15 (6.6%) https://nij.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh171/files/images/2019-07/records-figure2-big.jpg despite having out of wedlock rates of about 2-2.5x, the incarceration rate is 6x higher. There’s way more to it than you suggest. Given the above - it could be argued that as the violent crime rate drops of more than 50% can’t be attributed to fatherlessness - it could also be said at least half the crime rate rise wasn’t inherently due to that, likewise out of the remaining incarcerations at least half are due to other differences if you use white incarceration as a baseline - meaning at least 75% of the total incarcerations are potentially attributable to other things. Obviously it’s more complex than that - but like you said: data doesn’t lie: and thus given your argument - my conclusion must be true, right?
In addition, your contention that as well as being driven by fatherlessness - it’s driven by “black culture” - given that what you refer to as “black culture” hasn’t existed until fairly recently, crime has been dropping since what you call “black culture” was around. The data doesn’t even correlate here. The data refutes your position.
-->
@TWS1405
Likewise with welfare - the argument that welfare was a primary reason, again, not fully born out in the data. White people on welfare are subject to the same fatherlessness pressure for welfare, and have not seen equivalent increases. Key aspects of welfare that could really have driven fatherlessness directly were so short lived as to only have a short impact (Google man-in-the-house), fatherlessness (see the heritage data) began rising in the non-white population in 1950 - predating the issues with welfare.
The big issue with it, is whether it’s correlation or causation. Are people on welfare because they are single parent families and thus qualify for welfare - or are they single parent families as a result of them being on welfare. The data doesn’t really support the latter conclusion - as it implies divorce and separation - and as divorce rates are relatively close between white and black women - despite single parent families really tracking up much higher in black woman than white since 1970.
http://www.stateofourunions.org/2009/si-divorce.php
While separation rates could indeed be higher due to welfare - you run afoul correlation = causation again. Are the specific conditions that cause marital issues in these circumstances similar to the ones that lead to one qualifying for welfare? Or does the conditions provided by welfare lead to marital issues? You can’t simply assume a causal link. What about the other way around - does welfare encourage people to have kids to make money? Hard to say - but given that the black birth rate fell through the floor - halving between 1960 and 1980 - it’s hard to find any data that matches that conclusion.
This is not to say that welfare has no impact at all; one should not dismiss correlations - but the data clearly shows it’s much more complex that that, and that the impact of welfare and separation rates don’t add up due to correlations in some examples - but not in others. So while absolutely, welfare and the nature of it can have an impact - the idea that it is what caused the problem - as you suggest - isnot supported by the data. Now - I’m sure you can find multiple opinion pieces to quote to say that it does - but hey, I can find opinion taking any position on any issue. Being able to find a link - is not at all impressive, especially when you appear unable to link or tie together data to support your position.
Here specifically is where the biased inferences creep in - firstly you said the civil rights era (circa 1960s) we’re proud, and determined (implying todays are not) - and you also blame LBJs war in poverty and welfare (circa 1960s), for making women marry the government and causing rising fatherlessness (circa 1960s).
Given that the black population of the 1960s is the same as the black population of the 1960s; the inference you make here is that the Proud, determined population then got married into government welfare - despite having pride and being determined.
Your response was just another nuh-uh - that because you didn’t state it, it’s a straw man. Unfortunately - just because you didn’t explicitly contradict yourself does not mean your argument doesn’t contradict itself. And just because you didn’t explicitly say the black population of the 1960s is the same as the black population of the 1960s that they aren’t the same - they are.
Note: you don’t offer a counter here, it’s just a blurted out denial - it’s a silly denial.
I don’t really have much of an issue with attributing cause of the crime rates - yours are clearly inaccurate - but attribution itself is not a big deal.
The issue, specifically is drawing causal inferences and attribution that imply value of worth - is what I’m explicitly objecting to.
If you attributed things to welfare or rises in single parenthood - it wouldn’t be that big a deal - it would be largely wrong, but it’s not an objectionable argument.
When you imply that there’s something wrong with the black population - because they don’t have pride and determinism and aren’t helping themselves - or implying worth because whites didn’t “bitch and moan” about white slavery - or imply that black populations fell into lazy welfare traps - but whites didn’t (which are the implication of your argument regardless of whether you have explicitly said them) - these implications are unsupported by data - imply value that isn’t present in the data - and are wholly negative.
The big issue with it, is whether it’s correlation or causation. Are people on welfare because they are single parent families and thus qualify for welfare - or are they single parent families as a result of them being on welfare. The data doesn’t really support the latter conclusion - as it implies divorce and separation - and as divorce rates are relatively close between white and black women - despite single parent families really tracking up much higher in black woman than white since 1970.
http://www.stateofourunions.org/2009/si-divorce.php
While separation rates could indeed be higher due to welfare - you run afoul correlation = causation again. Are the specific conditions that cause marital issues in these circumstances similar to the ones that lead to one qualifying for welfare? Or does the conditions provided by welfare lead to marital issues? You can’t simply assume a causal link. What about the other way around - does welfare encourage people to have kids to make money? Hard to say - but given that the black birth rate fell through the floor - halving between 1960 and 1980 - it’s hard to find any data that matches that conclusion.
This is not to say that welfare has no impact at all; one should not dismiss correlations - but the data clearly shows it’s much more complex that that, and that the impact of welfare and separation rates don’t add up due to correlations in some examples - but not in others. So while absolutely, welfare and the nature of it can have an impact - the idea that it is what caused the problem - as you suggest - isnot supported by the data. Now - I’m sure you can find multiple opinion pieces to quote to say that it does - but hey, I can find opinion taking any position on any issue. Being able to find a link - is not at all impressive, especially when you appear unable to link or tie together data to support your position.
Here specifically is where the biased inferences creep in - firstly you said the civil rights era (circa 1960s) we’re proud, and determined (implying todays are not) - and you also blame LBJs war in poverty and welfare (circa 1960s), for making women marry the government and causing rising fatherlessness (circa 1960s).
Given that the black population of the 1960s is the same as the black population of the 1960s; the inference you make here is that the Proud, determined population then got married into government welfare - despite having pride and being determined.
Your response was just another nuh-uh - that because you didn’t state it, it’s a straw man. Unfortunately - just because you didn’t explicitly contradict yourself does not mean your argument doesn’t contradict itself. And just because you didn’t explicitly say the black population of the 1960s is the same as the black population of the 1960s that they aren’t the same - they are.
Note: you don’t offer a counter here, it’s just a blurted out denial - it’s a silly denial.
I don’t really have much of an issue with attributing cause of the crime rates - yours are clearly inaccurate - but attribution itself is not a big deal.
The issue, specifically is drawing causal inferences and attribution that imply value of worth - is what I’m explicitly objecting to.
If you attributed things to welfare or rises in single parenthood - it wouldn’t be that big a deal - it would be largely wrong, but it’s not an objectionable argument.
When you imply that there’s something wrong with the black population - because they don’t have pride and determinism and aren’t helping themselves - or implying worth because whites didn’t “bitch and moan” about white slavery - or imply that black populations fell into lazy welfare traps - but whites didn’t (which are the implication of your argument regardless of whether you have explicitly said them) - these implications are unsupported by data - imply value that isn’t present in the data - and are wholly negative.
The difference is the culture. Any measure of success among those in the black community was frowned upon
Wow. So first round blame was fatherlessness due to welfare, then this was bought about “black culture” - given the links you shared, more thug centric toxic masculinity culture - now it’s all caused by acting white.
Make up your mind!
That being said, let’s look at your link; a link that studies friendship groups in schools - shows that black students with a GPA of 4.0, have the same number of friends - on average - as someone scoring around 2.8 gpa.
From this - you assert, without any other justification or data - that this means that “any measure of success among those in the black community is frowned upon” - and is also such a profound harm to the black community that no-wait-actually- this is the issue why black people aren’t successful!
What an unbelievable reach your making there
What an unbelievablely wildly extreme, broad and hardcore conclusion to infer from such a small piece of data. The data you cite clearly does not justify the wild conclusion you’re trying to draw from it.
Make up your mind!
That being said, let’s look at your link; a link that studies friendship groups in schools - shows that black students with a GPA of 4.0, have the same number of friends - on average - as someone scoring around 2.8 gpa.
From this - you assert, without any other justification or data - that this means that “any measure of success among those in the black community is frowned upon” - and is also such a profound harm to the black community that no-wait-actually- this is the issue why black people aren’t successful!
What an unbelievable reach your making there
What an unbelievablely wildly extreme, broad and hardcore conclusion to infer from such a small piece of data. The data you cite clearly does not justify the wild conclusion you’re trying to draw from it.
What data, exactly, am I using. Since I flat out gave no direct cited source,
You literally cited multiple sources throughout the is thread. Don’t be a fool.
But if you want to claim you haven’t provided any sources - I am happy to state, based on your own replies to me - that this means you haven’t proven any of your claims right?
But if you want to claim you haven’t provided any sources - I am happy to state, based on your own replies to me - that this means you haven’t proven any of your claims right?
-->
@TWS1405
So, if social trends make jumping off a cliff popular, is everyone going to choose to do it? I believe the Tide Pod challenge proves how stupid some people can be, but they are in the minority.
You are confusing “social trend” as in socioeconomic trends, employment rates, changes in the environment you’re part of, and the challenges individuals face; with “social trends”, as in various behaviours that individuals wish to copy. This is a silly objection.
Not everyone in poverty has such low standards that they would just jump at the chance to choose ingesting a highly addictive drug that will destroy their life.
Correct - but a straw man - as I never suggest they did, and nothing I said implies it must.
Redlining doesn’t equal holding a gun to someone’s head and forcing them to choose to ingest an illegal drug.
Correct. but a straw man - as I never suggest they did, and nothing I said implies it must.
Racial inequality doesn’t hold a gun to anyone’s head forcing them to choose to ingest an illegal drug. So on and so forth.
Correct. but a straw man - as I never suggest they did, and nothing I said implies it must.
Let me remind you of what I actually said:
Let me remind you of what I actually said:
However - social trends are clear, poverty and economic factors are indeed associated with high level of drug use, and substance abuse - so redlining, and racial inequality raised unemployment and increases poverty disproportionately in black communities; that alone puts those communities at higher risk for substance abuse.
The issue specifically, is that economic hard ship, stress, extreme poverty, lower education, destroyed community and associated depression and helplessness make the escape of drugs more appealing.
Drug use is, of course, a choice, but the idea that a middle class family of three in the suburbs with no financial troubles, and a person in extreme poverty, at high risk of violence, little education, in a broken community, have an identical equal choice - and that it’s equally easy for both of them to make the same - flies in the face of everything we know about addiction.
It is of course possible for things to be a choice; but also choices that are harder by a variety of external factors. Environmental stressors like poverty, unemployment, broken communities, poor education, abuse, etc - all change how easy or hard that choice is, and helps lead to more people making the wrong one.
Simply pretending that this is not the case, as you do, is complete nonsense, fundamentally just another one in a long line of “nuh-uhs” that you using to ignore and reject fact based data.
The reality of this is that the response crack epidemic, visited upon broken, high unemployment high poverty black communities - to criminalize drug use and treat the epidemic as a crime problem - is what lead to mass incarceration. It’s common knowledge that the penalties for drugs that mainly blacks used were many times harsher than ones that whites used, disparities in enforcement lead to a clearly disproportional racial disparity in incarceration.
This is a clear - almost cut and dry - issue or racist policy causing the issue. One that is emphasized by the opioid crisis - which you ignored in your response - where the crisis is being treated as a health issue, not a crime issue. If possession of opioids was treated as harshly as possession of crack - if identical policing strategy of at risk communities was similar, and prosecutors, plea systems, courts, and juries were equally biased against those abusing opioids as they were during the 90s for blacks - then we may have seen the same mass incarceration for whites - this is to juxtapose (note the correct usage of the word btw) these two response to point out that if the response to the crack epidemic was similar to the opioid epidemic, it may not have been quite as bad for mass incarceration.
This is just another in a long line of dismissive, silly “nuh-uh” responses where you don’t really offer anything, other than an obtuse, inaccurate and barely logical objection that can be shown to be a clearly insufficient objection.
The whole premise of your replies here, seem overtly targeted to portray complex social issues solely as problems that are inherently caused by and perpetuates solely the black community due, implicitly to some failure of character or constitution.
This is where accusations of racism come from, and given your responses - is actually fair criticism.
We can talk about the pervasiveness of “acting white”, the origins of mass incarceration can explanations for crime rate, or the break down of black families - those are all fair topics - and ones explored at length on the left, and you could bring up on instagram or Twitter without real objection.
The objection here is not the topics you discuss - though it’s clear most of them are wrong to a greater or lesser degree.
The objection is the pervasive implication that underpins everything you’ve said - that it’s black people who are to blame for where they are, and the constant implication that there is something that is just not as good in blacks as in whites.
There is an implication that blacks degenerated into welfare because they were offered federal money - but not white women, apparently. That they “bitch and whine” about slavery, that black people today don’t have pride or determination, and that despite being at the bottom of a deep economic and social hole broadly dug for them over the last two centuries by white people - that the reason they are not yet out of that hole is because they’re not trying hard enough.
None of this is explicit - but are all definitive implications of the arguments you are making, and the things you are saying; negative value statements underpinning everhing you’re saying - those implications - is why people appearing to be branding the things you’re saying as racist.
Drug use is, of course, a choice, but the idea that a middle class family of three in the suburbs with no financial troubles, and a person in extreme poverty, at high risk of violence, little education, in a broken community, have an identical equal choice - and that it’s equally easy for both of them to make the same - flies in the face of everything we know about addiction.
It is of course possible for things to be a choice; but also choices that are harder by a variety of external factors. Environmental stressors like poverty, unemployment, broken communities, poor education, abuse, etc - all change how easy or hard that choice is, and helps lead to more people making the wrong one.
Simply pretending that this is not the case, as you do, is complete nonsense, fundamentally just another one in a long line of “nuh-uhs” that you using to ignore and reject fact based data.
The reality of this is that the response crack epidemic, visited upon broken, high unemployment high poverty black communities - to criminalize drug use and treat the epidemic as a crime problem - is what lead to mass incarceration. It’s common knowledge that the penalties for drugs that mainly blacks used were many times harsher than ones that whites used, disparities in enforcement lead to a clearly disproportional racial disparity in incarceration.
This is a clear - almost cut and dry - issue or racist policy causing the issue. One that is emphasized by the opioid crisis - which you ignored in your response - where the crisis is being treated as a health issue, not a crime issue. If possession of opioids was treated as harshly as possession of crack - if identical policing strategy of at risk communities was similar, and prosecutors, plea systems, courts, and juries were equally biased against those abusing opioids as they were during the 90s for blacks - then we may have seen the same mass incarceration for whites - this is to juxtapose (note the correct usage of the word btw) these two response to point out that if the response to the crack epidemic was similar to the opioid epidemic, it may not have been quite as bad for mass incarceration.
This is just another in a long line of dismissive, silly “nuh-uh” responses where you don’t really offer anything, other than an obtuse, inaccurate and barely logical objection that can be shown to be a clearly insufficient objection.
The whole premise of your replies here, seem overtly targeted to portray complex social issues solely as problems that are inherently caused by and perpetuates solely the black community due, implicitly to some failure of character or constitution.
This is where accusations of racism come from, and given your responses - is actually fair criticism.
We can talk about the pervasiveness of “acting white”, the origins of mass incarceration can explanations for crime rate, or the break down of black families - those are all fair topics - and ones explored at length on the left, and you could bring up on instagram or Twitter without real objection.
The objection here is not the topics you discuss - though it’s clear most of them are wrong to a greater or lesser degree.
The objection is the pervasive implication that underpins everything you’ve said - that it’s black people who are to blame for where they are, and the constant implication that there is something that is just not as good in blacks as in whites.
There is an implication that blacks degenerated into welfare because they were offered federal money - but not white women, apparently. That they “bitch and whine” about slavery, that black people today don’t have pride or determination, and that despite being at the bottom of a deep economic and social hole broadly dug for them over the last two centuries by white people - that the reason they are not yet out of that hole is because they’re not trying hard enough.
None of this is explicit - but are all definitive implications of the arguments you are making, and the things you are saying; negative value statements underpinning everhing you’re saying - those implications - is why people appearing to be branding the things you’re saying as racist.
-->
@TWS1405
You know what's truly comical, you thinking you know what you are talking about.It is to you who is cherry-picking. Reading comprehension matters.I mean really...Quoting out of context.False comparisons.Strawman arguments.Numerous genetic fallacies.Argument from Repetition.Bad reason fallacy.Shotgun Argumentation all abound.It's late. I will debunk your nonsense later.PS. Again, not showing you all my cards up front. The books come later/next.And I do not care what you believe. Your belief about my degree and library is not a requisite here. All good things...come to those who wait.
A bunch of assertions and accusations and an empty sack is worth the sack.
-->
@Athias
Prove to me that blacks were in ancient sumeria.
-->
@TWS1405
First and foremost <snip> rebuttal to my clearly stated position(s).
He asserts, without justification or argument - “nuh-uh”
Recall. In a previous reply - you suggested that blacks in the 1960s had pride and determination - and implied this wasn’t the case today. In the context of your OP - that people are resistant to fact based data: I pointed out that this assertion isn’t actually supported by any data; you just drew this conclusion from your own bias - not anything explicitly objective.
To support your assertion with data, as I stated before - you must have a metric or data showing a valid measure or indication for pride and determination, and a comparison with today. Without this, your original assertion is mere assertion - not fact.
Recall. In a previous reply - you suggested that blacks in the 1960s had pride and determination - and implied this wasn’t the case today. In the context of your OP - that people are resistant to fact based data: I pointed out that this assertion isn’t actually supported by any data; you just drew this conclusion from your own bias - not anything explicitly objective.
To support your assertion with data, as I stated before - you must have a metric or data showing a valid measure or indication for pride and determination, and a comparison with today. Without this, your original assertion is mere assertion - not fact.
“Self-Perceptions of Black Americans: Self-Esteem and Personal Efficacy on JSTOR
You simply do not understand/comprehend the intended purpose in citing this data. Despite the fact that it is antiquated, the underlining personal issues addressed are still very much relevant present day.
He asserts, without justification or argument - “nuh-uh”
It does not show or indicate that pride and determination is lacking now, or was high before; the data contradicts what you said.
It does not show or indicate that pride and determination is lacking now, or was high before; the data contradicts what you said.
I am sure you have heard of Dinesh D’Souza, if not, no matter.…. <stuff>
Instead of defending your link, you’re trying to change the subject.
The Legacy of Self-hatred in the Black Community - The Black Detour
Reading comprehension matters. Another example of you not understanding/comprehending that which you are reading/reviewing.
He asserts, without justification or argument - “nuh-uh”
Moreover, dismissing it in its entirety just because it is a blog piece is a genetic fallacy.
I am not dismissing it all, partially or entirely - I think it’s a relatively decent opinion piece, and sounds reasonable - but it’s not a data point that shows a loss in pride or determination.
This citation is about the self-sabotage of black Americans.
Yes - self sabotage that the writer attributes to the legacy of racism. Unrelated to pride determination - or comparrison with the 60s
Do you agree with the writer that:
“The white man forced slaves to whip and punish other slaves, treating house negros better than field negros, and forced male slaves to sexually assault female slaves. This began the sowing of self-hatred and division among slaves, causing a ripple effect that can still be felt over one hundred and fifty years after slaves were emancipated. Still, we are not free because our minds are not free”
Do you agree with the writer that:
“The white man forced slaves to whip and punish other slaves, treating house negros better than field negros, and forced male slaves to sexually assault female slaves. This began the sowing of self-hatred and division among slaves, causing a ripple effect that can still be felt over one hundred and fifty years after slaves were emancipated. Still, we are not free because our minds are not free”
Do you agree with this quote from the text - it seems rather different an explanation than you have used so far, no? I suspect not.
If not - does this mean you are holding up this author as a credible authority on the subject of black experience when they agree with you, but a full of sh*t leftist who doesn’t the first clue of what she’s talking about when she doesn’t. This would be “cherry picking” right?
If not - does this mean you are holding up this author as a credible authority on the subject of black experience when they agree with you, but a full of sh*t leftist who doesn’t the first clue of what she’s talking about when she doesn’t. This would be “cherry picking” right?
an issue elegantly covered by scholar John McWhorter….
Instead of defending your link, you’re trying to change the subject.
Restoring self esteem and black pride - Consciousness.co.za MagazineYet another example of your lack of reading comprehension on your part.
He asserts, without justification or argument - “nuh-uh”
It’s not data - it doesn’t show anything about pride or determination that the original point was about
It’s not data - it doesn’t show anything about pride or determination that the original point was about
This citation speaks to John McWhorter’s subsequent book….
Instead of defending your link, you’re trying to change the subject.
Why I hate being a black man | Orville Lloyd Douglas | The Guardian
Yea, I read it. Are you sitting there telling me that the author of this “opinion” piece, a black man, has no say or stake in this discussion?
To clarify - this post does not contain any data point about pride, or determination (the original point). It explicitly contradicts your attribution of many of these issues - which I suspect you didn’t realize.
Is his experience not data? Are not the experiences of black Americans either individually or collectively, not data? According to you it appears not.
This is a textbook straw man. My contention is that this isn’t data - you portray my position as the experience is not valid.
Where to begin. Firstly - the writer is not American, he’s Canadian - which has you read the article would have been clear. He’s talking about taking the street car in Toronto; and while I’m sure the experience for black people in Canada is not great, it’s not identical to America.
Secondly - I think his experience is of course valid - if you are holding up his opinion as a credibly authority then you must also be agreeing that an element of the self perception black people have about themselves is due to the inherent racism shown to them every day - then I would wholeheartedly agree, and would welcome you to the side that believes inherent racism is still alive, well and shaping the world in negative ways.
Given that I suspect this isn’t your position, I would suggest that it is not me rejecting the opinion of this individual.
Given that data is defined as “facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis.” I would not call the perception of a single individual expressing their opinion in an oped, as “data”; the collective experiences of black peoples could be data depending how it’s gathered and collected - but not being “data” in the strict sense doesn’t make less important or less valid.
Secondly - I think his experience is of course valid - if you are holding up his opinion as a credibly authority then you must also be agreeing that an element of the self perception black people have about themselves is due to the inherent racism shown to them every day - then I would wholeheartedly agree, and would welcome you to the side that believes inherent racism is still alive, well and shaping the world in negative ways.
Given that I suspect this isn’t your position, I would suggest that it is not me rejecting the opinion of this individual.
Given that data is defined as “facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis.” I would not call the perception of a single individual expressing their opinion in an oped, as “data”; the collective experiences of black peoples could be data depending how it’s gathered and collected - but not being “data” in the strict sense doesn’t make less important or less valid.
So, everyone can just automatically disqualify the National Crime Victimization Survey from the Bureau of Justice Statistics then, eh!?!
No - classic straw man - that would be a collated set of broad representative experiences - right? So that is data.
That is what you are inferring here with your obvious genetic fallacy.
Genetic fallacy would imply I argued the Op Ed is wrong. It’s just not a data point - and that doesn’t make any statements about pride or determination which is the main point.
Charles Barkley and the Plague of 'Unintelligent' Blacks - The Atlantic
Opinion piece. Not data. Not about pride. Not really about pride. I don’t think you read it.
Yet another ignorant genetic fallacy. No need to keep referring to your logical fallacies any further.
I’m not saying it’s false - only that it doesn’t qualify as data (it doesn’t).
You also shipped out the part where I quoted the link you shared, and explained its highly critical for people like you quoting things like charles Barkley. It criticized your exact behaviour!
“This version of history is a mistake. It allows the Charles Barkleys of the world and the racists who undoubtedly will approvingly quote him to pretend that they are exposing some heretofore arcane bit of knowledge”
You also shipped out the part where I quoted the link you shared, and explained its highly critical for people like you quoting things like charles Barkley. It criticized your exact behaviour!
“This version of history is a mistake. It allows the Charles Barkleys of the world and the racists who undoubtedly will approvingly quote him to pretend that they are exposing some heretofore arcane bit of knowledge”
They are quite clear. And rather pathetic given your clear lack of reading comprehension skills and ability to follow along with the discussion that I am presenting you.
He asserts, without justification or argument - “nuh-uh” why? How?
The rest of your diatribe (to include your subsequent retort on data this, data that) is what is truly hilarious. You come off as somewhat intelligent, but when you open your mouth and speak, you sound like an ignoramus. You’re like a child afflicted with ADHD who forgot to take their medicine, completely incapable of drawing a straight line between to interrelated points.
He asserts, without justification or argument - “nuh-uh” why? How? Example?
If you need more, I have 400 other suggestions.
If I wanted to argue with John McWhorter - I’d argue with John McWhorter, If I wanted to argue with Dinesh D’souza - I’d argue with Donesh D’souza.
I would suggest you work on the quality of your links, providing reasoning and justifications in your posts, rather than block quoting other people, link spamming, and bald assertions about how wrong everyone is - you would fare much better.
-->
@Ramshutu
Wow...one superfluous retort after another whining about semantics and delivery but never addressing the fact-based data in and of itself.
Simple question: do a tiny, small % of black males in America commit over 50% of the entire nation's homicides/murders and non-negligent manslaughters or not?
Obvious answer: yes.
Do blacks kill 2x as many whites every year, yes or no?
Obvious answer: yes.
Since a tiny, small % of black makes are committing more violent crimes than whites, both intraracially and interracially, and the entirety of the LEFT, DEMOCRATS and DENIALIST BLACKS are unwilling to accept this fact, however you slice and dice it (attributable to, linked to, fact based criminological data, etc.) ... is my point. As a result, when these fact-based truths are mentioned, even lightly, you get reported by the leftist denialists and then banned from the social media platforms for "discrimination" via "hate speech and symbols."
End of story.
PS. I am NOT going to repeat myself proving you wrong, ove rand over again.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Prove to me that blacks were in ancient sumeria.
I have no intention of indulging this puerile, "No, you prove it TO ME," tactic of yours. You claimed that so-called, "blacks," were no where in Ancient Sumeria. I asked you for a receipt (i.e. reference or demonstrative argument.) You then relented that you did not have one, and instead are basing your claim on "facts of logic and historical reasoning"--i.e. historical "consensus." When asked to educate me on the subject on which you base your claim, you switched gears, and instead are attempting an argument from ignorance and placing the onus on my "proving you wrong," despite the fact that I HAVE NEITHER DENIED NOR DISMISSED YOUR CLAIM.
No one is forcing a response from you; no one is forcing you engage me in this discussion. If you have no intention of indulging my request, you can state as much. That is far more preferable than this discourteous display.
-->
@TWS1405
Wow...one superfluous retort after another whining about semantics and delivery but never addressing the fact-based data in and of itself.
“nuh-uh” Assertion - also false. If you take a look at my posts - I actually go through and detail all the “fact based data”
Given that you are now resorting to name calling and bald assertions - I will work under the assumption that you have capitulated on the entire argument.
Simple question: do a tiny, small % of black males in America commit over 50% of the entire nation's homicides/murders and non-negligent manslaughters or not?Obvious answer: yes.Do blacks kill 2x as many whites every year, yes or no?Obvious answer: yes.Since a tiny, small % of black makes are committing more violent crimes than whites, both intraracially and interracially.
Yes - but no one js denying this. I’m not denying it. Leftists aren’t denying it. Democrats aren’t denying it.
and the entirety of the LEFT, DEMOCRATS and DENIALIST BLACKS are unwilling to accept this fact.
I’m a leftist - I accept it. I know of no democrat or leftist that doesn’t accept it. This is a false premise.
however you slice and dice it (attributable to, linked to, fact based criminological data, etc.)... is my point.
But it’s a false point. No one rejects the data - this is literally the first part of my response to you. Are you unable to actually my address why this premise is wrong - or are you just going to repeat the same faulty claims?
As a result, when these fact based truths are mentioned, even lightly, you get reported by the leftist denialists and then banned from the social media platforms for "discrimination" via "hate speech and symbols."End of story.
Actually, as I have argued and presented in the posts above: the issue isn’t that your describing data - it’s that you’re making value statements based on it, such as:
There are no historical references to whites bitching and moaning about their enslavement.They're not born immoral, but they are certainly taught to be.It is a foregone conclusion that black communities with high crime rates know exactly what is happening, but they are just too chicken sh!t to do anything about it.lack of a proper upbringing by the single parent, lack of discipline, and lack of the sense and importance of taking personal responsibility and accountability for their choices and actions.They need to learn discipline, respect, and the importance of taking personal responsibility and accountability for their choices and actions - and understand the consequences of any bad choices and actions they make.Before civil rights black Americans had pride, self-respect, and determination to succeed in AmericaBlacks wanted to succeed then, but after civil rights, everything changedBlack culture is the problem that fuels crime, abuse, rape, murder, poor parenting, drug use, gangs, so on and so forthMore like mass paranoia and psychosis of the victimhood mentality hammered into their heads generation after generation is the true inherent problem.In fact, blacks in the Caribbean and South America do not act/behave as black American’s do precisely because they do not have the level of freedoms and luxuries that blacks in America haveThe difference is the culture. Any measure of success among those in the black community was frowned uponWhat is are the low standards some people have for themselves and others that makes the choice for them easier to consume illegal drugs.
All of these employ either explicit or implicit negative value statements about blacks - it’s value statements that change “facts” to “racism”
In addition, you’re frequently super sloppy in your language, either Freudian, or accidental when you say stuff like:
Why are so many resilient to fact-based truth regarding black criminality?And when I present the data that proves them wrong, they refuse to accept such data could be attributable to blacks in America,The data across all interrelated relative areas, clearly demonstrate black males are far more of a problem for America than what the left claims.
Where you cast your net fat too widely to present blacks or black males as the problem. If your language often applies to blacks in general - why is it unreasonable to presume you’re talking about blacks in general?
Finally, and probably more relevant to the conversation - you seem utterly and totally fixated with bombarding everyone, non stop, constantly, repeatedly, without cease - solely negative statistics about a given race - you are uninterested in context, uninterested in attribution, explanation, and discussion or causes or biases or prejudice in the data.
You are, unabashedly, systematically, and apparently indefatigably dedicated - not to discussion, or intellectual debate, or exploration of data - but to bombard everyone with your thoughts about how big a problem black crime statistics, black culture, and blacks not taking responsibility is.
Why on gods green earth could anyone imagine that such a single and dedicated focus on yelling at everyone about how bad all this crime and social data is for black people - would not come away with the sense that you probably didn’t have a great opinion of black people.
That behaviour is instructive - the lack of your willingness to explore or navigate the data, is also instructive; that your posts are solely about trying to convey negative data about blacks without caveat or discussion - is absolutely instructive.
That’s almost certainly what you were banned, and given all the issues above, which I have explained at length and you have mostly dismissed - the specific conclusion that this behaviour, and these statements are racist - is not a wholly unreasonable one.
PS. I am NOT going to repeat myself proving you wrong, ove rand over again.
But you’re not. As I’ve explained, the bulk of your responses are poorly reasoned “nuh-uh”, in your last response on your links you appeared to give up all pretext of argument and simply insisted I was wrong without explanation on almost every link.
As shown; the remainder of your posts are poorly thought out, inconsistent with the data or just plain illogical.
This is clearly an issue of you capitulating - unable to answer any of the points, and are going through this weird denial phase where you pretend nothing I’ve said actually exists.
Perhaps if you spent more time explaining why I’m wrong rather than telling me you have 400 books, you would fare better.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Prove to me that blacks were in ancient sumeria.
The ancient Sumerians, the "black-headed ones," lived in the southern part of what is now Iraq. The heartland of Sumer lay between the Euphrates and Tigris rivers, in what the Greeks later called Mesopotamia. This territory, once skillfully irrigated, proved very fertile, and major cities had long been in existence before the period when archaeologists can identify the Sumerian people themselves. [**]
According to a 4000 year-old inscription by Sumerian Lu-dingir-Ra:
"We migrated to where we are living now thousands of years ago, but they were unable to write down from where because they did not know how to write then. Later on inquisitive scribes and archivists in the royal palace studied the orally transmitted information in an attempt to find out about the past. Our people came to this land from a mountainous country to the northeast. But it is also said that some of them had come via sea from a land called Dilmun in the east. And the reason behind this migration is said to be the onset of an unexplained drought in their warm and rainy country.
Great Enlil had some of us 'darkheads' settle here.... According to rumours and the results of my research as to why we have called ourselves 'darkheads' I found out that before our forefathers migrated here, blonde haired and blue eyed people were living next to their country. I cannot visualise a person with blonde hair and blue eyes. And I don't think it would be nice. I have not seen any person like that in my country". [**]
thick black curly hair and brown skin
you know,
like jesus
-->
@TWS1405
Since you promote Dr. Clyde Winters' expertise on the subject, we should assume you also accept his expert opinions that black Africans were the first to settle China, North and South American and the lost continent of Atlantis.
-->
@3RU7AL
Simple misinterpretation. The "black-headed" ones probably means hair, otherwise they would just be "black".
The Sumerians came from the Northeast after the younger dryas event. And were not black
-->
@Athias
Then this conversation is over. Because I never made an original claim or assumed the BOP. In fact, the post that YOU quote of me was in response to another user making a claim. So I never had the BOP in this entire thread until you showed up and asked ME to make a claim, disregarding the context of your post.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
-->
@TWS1405
we was kangz
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Simple misinterpretation. The "black-headed" ones probably means hair, otherwise they would just be "black".The Sumerians came from the Northeast after the younger dryas event. And were not black
would you personally consider these people "white" ?
-->
@Ramshutu
Added08.04.22 09:35PM-->@TWS1405Wow...one superfluous retort after another whining about semantics and delivery but never addressing the fact-based data in and of itself.“nuh-uh” Assertion - also false. If you take a look at my posts - I actually go through and detail all the “fact based data”Given that you are now resorting to name calling and bald assertions - I will work under the assumption that you have capitulated on the entire argument.
Not false, fact. You're all about my delivery and nothing about the facts given.
There was no name-calling in that statement above. Adjectives do NOT = nouns.
And no, I have capitulated to nothing of the sort. (Delusions of graduer on your part)
Simple question: do a tiny, small % of black males in America commit over 50% of the entire nation's homicides/murders and non-negligent manslaughters or not?Obvious answer: yes.Do blacks kill 2x as many whites every year, yes or no?Obvious answer: yes.Since a tiny, small % of black makes are committing more violent crimes than whites, both intraracially and interracially.Yes - but no one js denying this. I’m not denying it. Leftists aren’t denying it. Democrats aren’t denying it.
Yes, you are. Yes, they are. Yes, they most certainly are. And in doing so it only perpetuates the problem.
and the entirety of the LEFT, DEMOCRATS and DENIALIST BLACKS are unwilling to accept this fact.I’m a leftist - I accept it. I know of no democrat or leftist that doesn’t accept it. This is a false premise.
Then you clearly do not know very many leftists or democrats then. Denial = acceptance. And they (leftists and democrats) are full of denial when it comes to level of black criminality among so few blacks that surpasses all races. If it were a contest, those black males doing all that killing would win every year. Meanwhile you people on the left keep harping on about white supremacy, white cis-male domestic terrorists, white privilege, police brutality, yadda yadda yadda.
however you slice and dice it (attributable to, linked to, fact based criminological data, etc.)... is my point.But it’s a false point. No one rejects the data - this is literally the first part of my response to you. Are you unable to actually my address why this premise is wrong - or are you just going to repeat the same faulty claims?
No, it is not. Yes, they do reject the data. As soon as I or anyone like-minded (to include black conservatives) presents that data, out come the derogatory labels written on the palm of the hand raised to silence that information.
As a result, when these fact based truths are mentioned, even lightly, you get reported by the leftist denialists and then banned from the social media platforms for "discrimination" via "hate speech and symbols."End of story.Actually, as I have argued and presented in the posts above: the issue isn’t that your describing data - it’s that you’re making value statements based on it, such as:There are no historical references to whites bitching and moaning about their enslavement.They're not born immoral, but they are certainly taught to be.It is a foregone conclusion that black communities with high crime rates know exactly what is happening, but they are just too chicken sh!t to do anything about it.lack of a proper upbringing by the single parent, lack of discipline, and lack of the sense and importance of taking personal responsibility and accountability for their choices and actions.They need to learn discipline, respect, and the importance of taking personal responsibility and accountability for their choices and actions - and understand the consequences of any bad choices and actions they make.Before civil rights black Americans had pride, self-respect, and determination to succeed in AmericaBlacks wanted to succeed then, but after civil rights, everything changedBlack culture is the problem that fuels crime, abuse, rape, murder, poor parenting, drug use, gangs, so on and so forthMore like mass paranoia and psychosis of the victimhood mentality hammered into their heads generation after generation is the true inherent problem.In fact, blacks in the Caribbean and South America do not act/behave as black American’s do precisely because they do not have the level of freedoms and luxuries that blacks in America haveThe difference is the culture. Any measure of success among those in the black community was frowned uponWhat is are the low standards some people have for themselves and others that makes the choice for them easier to consume illegal drugs.All of these employ either explicit or implicit negative value statements about blacks - it’s value statements that change “facts” to “racism”
None of the statements I made are factually inaccurate. None of them. None. As such, none of them amount to racism. Truth is NOT racism.
In addition, you’re frequently super sloppy in your language, either Freudian, or accidental when you say stuff like:Why are so many resilient to fact-based truth regarding black criminality?And when I present the data that proves them wrong, they refuse to accept such data could be attributable to blacks in America,The data across all interrelated relative areas, clearly demonstrate black males are far more of a problem for America than what the left claims.Where you cast your net fat too widely to present blacks or black males as the problem. If your language often applies to blacks in general - why is it unreasonable to presume you’re talking about blacks in general?
Semantics argument.
Finally, and probably more relevant to the conversation - you seem utterly and totally fixated with bombarding everyone, non stop, constantly, repeatedly, without cease - solely negative statistics about a given race - you are uninterested in context, uninterested in attribution, explanation, and discussion or causes or biases or prejudice in the data.
The topic or issue is correcting the false narrative put out by the left, that white supremacy is to blame for everything when it is not. The criminological data proves that leftist narrative patently false. Same goes for their "non-stop, constantly, repeatedly, without cease" false claims of police brutality as well. So, to combat one view another has to be presented. Truth. And clearly you, like all on the left, hate the truth.
You are, unabashedly, systematically, and apparently indefatigably dedicated - not to discussion, or intellectual debate, or exploration of data - but to bombard everyone with your thoughts about how big a problem black crime statistics, black culture, and blacks not taking responsibility is.
I am always up for a spirited debate/discussion, but when people come out of the gates personally attacking me and/or whining about the method of delivery, derailing the intended debate/discussion, then yeah, I give it right back tit for tat.
Given the state of affairs that about 20% of the black population finds themselves in generation after generation since the beginning of the 70s, yeah, it is a big problem for blacks, and I would like to see a turnaround of that. Not only for them, but for all.
Why on gods green earth could anyone imagine that such a single and dedicated focus on yelling at everyone about how bad all this crime and social data is for black people - would not come away with the sense that you probably didn’t have a great opinion of black people.
1 dimensional thinking on their part.
That behaviour is instructive - the lack of your willingness to explore or navigate the data, is also instructive; that your posts are solely about trying to convey negative data about blacks without caveat or discussion - is absolutely instructive.
You sound like a broken record one time too many. You cannot say with any certainty that I am unwilling to do anything or that I have not already. I have. I have studied the issue for more than two decades. I know what the problem is, some of which I have already stated. But not all of it.
That’s almost certainly what you were banned, and given all the issues above, which I have explained at length and you have mostly dismissed - the specific conclusion that this behaviour, and these statements are racist - is not a wholly unreasonable one.
None of the statements are racist. When people like you hate the truth cause the truth sounds like hate to you, you immediately call it racist.
PS. I am NOT going to repeat myself proving you wrong, ove rand over again.But you’re not. As I’ve explained, the bulk of your responses are poorly reasoned “nuh-uh”, in your last response on your links you appeared to give up all pretext of argument and simply insisted I was wrong without explanation on almost every link.
Ah, there's that delusion of grandeur again.
Only "nuh-uh" banality here is all on you.
As shown; the remainder of your posts are poorly thought out, inconsistent with the data or just plain illogical.
Easy to claim, harder to prove. Nothing I've said has been inconsistent with the data since it is based specifically off the data.
Truth is not illogical. Genius. *facepalm*
This is clearly an issue of you capitulating - unable to answer any of the points, and are going through this weird denial phase where you pretend nothing I’ve said actually exists.Perhaps if you spent more time explaining why I’m wrong rather than telling me you have 400 books, you would fare better.
Nope. Only in your fictional world is it capitulating. You've made no points worth answering (points are not answered, questions are answered).
I've already explained why you are wrong.
You're bitching about delivery and ignoring the truth of it all.
-->
@oromagi
citing one link does not equal "promoting" anything.
-->
@TWS1405
-->@oromagiciting one link does not equal "promoting" anything.
The legitimate debaters on this site stand by the sources they link to. If the reliability of their sources is challenged, they either present countervailing evidence of reliability or retract the source as unreliable.
Are you standing by Dr. Clyde Winters as a reliable source of anthropological evidence on Sumer or do you now regret your hasty propagation of an obvious self-publishin' bullshitter?
Shall we think of you as one of those guys who just believes the first thing on google that reinforces his bias or somebody who looks into the quality of data before distributing that data as fact?
-->
@oromagi
Well, I am new here. I do not know all your rules and/or expectations. Also, this is the forum and not a formal debate.
It was a link with info that established the opposite of what another was claiming.
You also took it to another level by claiming I was promoting him, personally, and demanded more than what was necessary (ie., red herring fallacy). That's on you. Not me.
I regret nothing. Never have, never will.
You definitely come off as a sanctimonious snob.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Then this conversation is over. Because I never made an original claim or assumed the BOP. In fact, the post that YOU quote of me was in response to another user making a claim. So I never had the BOP in this entire thread until you showed up and asked ME to make a claim, disregarding the context of your post.Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
C'mon Dr.Franklin--it's me, homie. Dawg. How you gon' try to play a brotha?
You are exactly correct. The simple reason is that liberals do not believe in collective differences between people. Some groups are more violent, some are faster, some are smarter, etc. For example, whites will dominate in strongmen competitions, but will never see the light of day in long-distance running. East Asians dominate in math, Germans are good at Physics, Northern + Eastern Europeans are good with computers and video games, Ireland produces poets, and Britain produces great novelists and inventors. (America produces nothing, sadly) Everybody naturally knows this, and can recognize these differences between people. But, liberals only look at people through an individualist lens(blank slate). They think everyone is truly unique and awesome. Nope, you are not special, and your life is largely determined by your genes. It's why poverty doesn't have an effect on black violence. The richest blacks commit more crime than the poorest whites.
That was your first post--one of your first "original" claims.
If geography determines genes than it makes sense why Europeans are the way they are. They are generally more individualistic because they had to survive the brutal ice age, and they dominated geopolitics because they lived through harsh conditions. Blacks never had to invent or develop a great civilization because if they wanted to survive, they just hunted, and really couldn't grow much food. Jews didn't have a homeland until '48 because their ancestry is of Cain and Esau, which the Bible described them as nomads. Plus, most jews are descended from khazaria, a nomad kingdom.So yeah, Ireland has a knack for poetry because they were isolated and became spiritual in peace(I theorize that), and also they love alcohol
This was your second post, where you posted more "original claims."
3RU7AL Post #184:
--> @Dr.FranklinIt's why poverty doesn't have an effect on black violence. The richest blacks commit more crime than the poorest whites.The countries with the ten highest crime rates, expressed in per 100,000 people, globally are:
- Venezuela (83.76)
- Papua New Guinea (80.79)
- South Africa (76.86)
- Afghanistan (76.31)
- Honduras (74.54)
- Trinidad and Tobago (71.63)
- Guyana (68.74)
- El Salvador (67.79)
- Brazil (67.49)
- Jamaica (67.42)
It's here where 3RU7AL responds, the one you accuse of being the original claimant.
You two proceed to discuss, even to a point where you concede that those presumably responsible for the high Venezuelan crime rates weren't so-called "black" either. And then 3RU7AL responds to this:
3RU7AL Post #211:
--> @Dr.FranklinBlacks never had to invent or develop a great civilizationIn fact, there was a time when Egypt's rulers were black, hailing from the kingdom of Kush, located in modern-day Sudan and Upper Egypt, according to KPBS. Around 750 BC they conquered Egypt, enthroned their own pharaohs and ruled Egypt for nearly a century, in what would be known as the Nubian Dynasty, or Egypt's 25th Dynasty. [**]The richest man in history,Mansa Musa (Musa I of Mali) was the king of the ancient empire of Mali in West Africa. [**]not to mention,Many scholars have concluded that the founders of the first Mesopotamian civilization were Black Sumerians. Mesopotamia was the Biblical land of Shinar (Sumer), which sprung up around 3000 B.C. After deciphering the cuneiform script and researching ancient Mesopotamia for many years Henry Rawlinson (1810-1895) discovered that the founders of the civilization were of Kushite (Cushite) origin. [**]
Note that 3RU7AL "responds" not "instigates" with a counterargument, which has references.
You then responded with this:
1.The nubians came much after the original Egyptians, so they piggy-backed off of non-black innovation. They pulled a South Africa where blacks piggy-backed off of white innovation.2.The Mali Empire was in direct contact with the outside world and so that is how they developed. Again sub-Saharan advanced societies never develop on their own, instead it took a massive volume of trade for the Mali Empire to grow. That and Ethiopia are the two only exceptions in ALL of sub-Saharan history.3.That is preposterous. Your source is a literal "we wuz kangs" blog that tries to claim that minoan greece and ancient china was a black civilization. LMAO
A few statements later, I entered the fray with this:
Athias Post #247:
--> @Dr.Franklin1.The nubians came much after the original Egyptians, so they piggy-backed off of non-black innovation. They pulled a South Africa where blacks piggy-backed off of white innovation.2.The Mali Empire was in direct contact with the outside world and so that is how they developed. Again sub-Saharan advanced societies never develop on their own, instead it took a massive volume of trade for the Mali Empire to grow. That and Ethiopia are the two only exceptions in ALL of sub-Saharan history.Receipts?3.That is preposterous. Your source is a literal "we wuz kangs" blog that tries to claim that minoan greece and ancient china was a black civilization. LMAOCriticizing the source, but not the point.
More original claims without reference or substantiation, and now, here we are.
So, no, Dr. Franklin. YOU'RE NOT GOING TO PASS OFF A LIE that 3RU7AL was the instigator, when it was in fact you who proposed claims which conjured our responses. YOU DO NOT GET TO DETERMINE WHETHER YOU ASSUME A BURDEN OF PROOF; IT IS THE CLAIM ITSELF THAT DETERMINES THE BURDEN OF PROOF.
If you intend to end this conversation, here, that's all well and good. Perhaps in the future, you may consider not underestimating the faculties of those whom you intend to engage in discussion and express some courtesy and decorum.