Black Lives Do Matter

[J.W.Hardin]

I want to start by saying I’m all for criminal justice reform (especially losing the incarceration rate in the US). I’m all for cops going to jail when they do something illegal. However, I don’t understand how the cause entitled “Black Lives Matter” could be about police brutality. I understand that some police are prejudice and that can lead to unjust killings. The thing is, these unjust killings aren’t even close to the number one problem plaguing black communities. Technically it’s heart disease, then cancer. Even assault (about 90% of which is black on black according to the FBI) makes the top ten list of killers of African Americans. And what about the things that ruin families and communities even if they don’t necessarily cause death, such as incarceration/recidivism rates, unemployment/underemployment and selling/using drugs. My question is, if BLM really wanted to help the black community why would they not attack these issues instead of the relatively small, but highly publicized, issue of racially fueled police brutality. My assumption is that the people involved in the BLM leadership are privileged, bored, and looking for fame. In my opinion, all the money that is going towards BLM could be going to actually saving lives and making the world a better place. Please, someone tell me why money is better spent on a problem that affects hundreds when the same money could be used much more efficiently to address a problem that affects hundreds of thousands?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[DarkFury]

It's the second generation of greed. You had Jessie and AL bleed them for the last forty years and now the new generation of leeches wants it's turn.

 

[Cossack1483]

To whom?

 

[Meathead]

I want to start by saying I’m all for criminal justice reform (especially losing the incarceration rate in the US). I’m all for cops going to jail when they do something illegal. However, I don’t understand how the cause entitled “Black Lives Matter” could be about police brutality. I understand that some police are prejudice and that can lead to unjust killings. The thing is, these unjust killings aren’t even close to the number one problem plaguing black communities. Technically it’s heart disease, then cancer. Even assault (about 90% of which is black on black according to the FBI) makes the top ten list of killers of African Americans. And what about the things that ruin families and communities even if they don’t necessarily cause death, such as incarceration/recidivism rates, unemployment/underemployment and selling/using drugs. My question is, if BLM really wanted to help the black community why would they not attack these issues instead of the relatively small, but highly publicized, issue of racially fueled police brutality. My assumption is that the people involved in the BLM leadership are privileged, bored, and looking for fame. In my opinion, all the money that is going towards BLM could be going to actually saving lives and making the world a better place. Please, someone tell me why money is better spent on a problem that affects hundreds when the same money could be used much more efficiently to address a problem that affects hundreds of thousands?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

The irony is that black lives mattered more when they were slaves, and thus property. The carnage we witness in inner cities would never be allowed in those days.

Now they're just useless votes in overwhelmingly Democrat cities.

 

[Cossack1483]

Obsolete farm equipment ?

 

[J.W.Hardin]

Stop trolling my post. Leave that to the Russians, weirdo. Cossack1483

 

[ClosedCaption]

My assumption is that the people involved in the BLM leadership are privileged, bored, and looking for fame.

How is anyone supposed to have a reasonable conversation when you've gone out of your way to pretend that this is all about people sharing the same negative character traits and their issues being "fake".

Lets take the Opiod Epidemic. If I said I wanted to discuss it and my take was that they were just irresponsible low lifes. What is the counter argument? Uh, they arent low lifes?

You'll never talk about the issue, you'll always attempt to make it personal to avoid it...always

 

[J.W.Hardin]

Ok, I’m not sure if you are intentionally misinterpreting my sentence or if it’s an accident but what I mean by the BLM leadership is the people who organize/profit from BLM. My point is that these people are exploiting a cause that is relatively small because they stand to gain from the publicity. If they really cared about the community they claim to represent and fight for they would be addressing more important causes. Like for example the opioid crisis which killed more than 10x as many African American as police last year. (Washington Post, www.kff.org)

 

[J.W.Hardin]

My assumption is that the people involved in the BLM leadership are privileged, bored, and looking for fame.

How is anyone supposed to have a reasonable conversation when you've gone out of your way to pretend that this is all about people sharing the same negative character traits and their issues being "fake".


You'll never talk about the issue, you'll always attempt to make it personal to avoid it...always

Also not sure why you put the word “fake” in quotes as I never said that their issues were fake. In fact, I said that prejudice in police can lead to unjust killings.

It’s real alright. Take this analogy, polio is real, there were about 30 cases worldwide last year. Cancer is also real, in the US alone there was about 1.6 million new cases of cancer last year. Which one should we focus most of our effort on? This doesn’t mean polio isn’t tragic when it occurs it just means there’s a greater opportunity for contributing to the common good through fighting cancer.

Charity should be about serving the greater good. Not which cause gets the most media attention and therefore the best opportunity to get your name out there.

 

[Paul Essien]

I want to start by saying I’m all for criminal justice reform (especially losing the incarceration rate in the US). I’m all for cops going to jail when they do something illegal. However, I don’t understand how the cause entitled “Black Lives Matter” could be about police brutality. I understand that some police are prejudice and that can lead to unjust killings. The thing is, these unjust killings aren’t even close to the number one problem plaguing black communities. Technically it’s heart disease, then cancer. Even assault (about 90% of which is black on black according to the FBI) makes the top ten list of killers of African Americans. And what about the things that ruin families and communities even if they don’t necessarily cause death, such as incarceration/recidivism rates, unemployment/underemployment and selling/using drugs. My question is, if BLM really wanted to help the black community why would they not attack these issues instead of the relatively small, but highly publicized, issue of racially fueled police brutality. My assumption is that the people involved in the BLM leadership are privileged, bored, and looking for fame. In my opinion, all the money that is going towards BLM could be going to actually saving lives and making the world a better place. Please, someone tell me why money is better spent on a problem that affects hundreds when the same money could be used much more efficiently to address a problem that affects hundreds of thousands?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Why don't the ppl who campaign for breast cancer or liver cancer, do away with all that, n focus on lung cancer because that's biggest cancer killer ?

 

[J.W.Hardin]

I want to start by saying I’m all for criminal justice reform (especially losing the incarceration rate in the US). I’m all for cops going to jail when they do something illegal. However, I don’t understand how the cause entitled “Black Lives Matter” could be about police brutality. I understand that some police are prejudice and that can lead to unjust killings. The thing is, these unjust killings aren’t even close to the number one problem plaguing black communities. Technically it’s heart disease, then cancer. Even assault (about 90% of which is black on black according to the FBI) makes the top ten list of killers of African Americans. And what about the things that ruin families and communities even if they don’t necessarily cause death, such as incarceration/recidivism rates, unemployment/underemployment and selling/using drugs. My question is, if BLM really wanted to help the black community why would they not attack these issues instead of the relatively small, but highly publicized, issue of racially fueled police brutality. My assumption is that the people involved in the BLM leadership are privileged, bored, and looking for fame. In my opinion, all the money that is going towards BLM could be going to actually saving lives and making the world a better place. Please, someone tell me why money is better spent on a problem that affects hundreds when the same money could be used much more efficiently to address a problem that affects hundreds of thousands?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Why don't the ppl who campaign for breast cancer or liver cancer, do away with all that, n focus on lung cancer because that's biggest cancer killer ?

Good question. Now we’re getting somewhere. The reason people campaign for certain types of cancer, I would assume, is because it personally affected them or someone they know. Which in the end works out because more people affected=more people supporting the cause. This is where the inherent issue with BLM comes into play. Washington Post states ~230 shootings of African Americans last year. ~40. The ratio of people affected to people campaigning is nuts. To put this in prospective, 450 people die falling out of bed each year. As far as I know, 0 people are members of organizations against mattress manufacturers.

Now, when there are cases in the news about people being killed by police unjustly I think that it’s right to stand up and say that’s wrong. And when they get off people have the right to protest and I think they should. The part that I find ridiculous, is that BLM is one of the most prominent activist organizations in America currently and they’re focusing on such a small problem. And on top of that, they’re using a title that insinuates they’re there for a whole community when in fact they’re only focusing on such a specific, over publicized, problem. I think that’s part of their game “Black Lives Matter” sounds like such a nice thing to get behind. If only it was for a cause that is actually detrimental to the black community like diabetes, crime, drugs etc.

 

[Paul Essien]

I want to start by saying I’m all for criminal justice reform (especially losing the incarceration rate in the US). I’m all for cops going to jail when they do something illegal. However, I don’t understand how the cause entitled “Black Lives Matter” could be about police brutality. I understand that some police are prejudice and that can lead to unjust killings. The thing is, these unjust killings aren’t even close to the number one problem plaguing black communities. Technically it’s heart disease, then cancer. Even assault (about 90% of which is black on black according to the FBI) makes the top ten list of killers of African Americans. And what about the things that ruin families and communities even if they don’t necessarily cause death, such as incarceration/recidivism rates, unemployment/underemployment and selling/using drugs. My question is, if BLM really wanted to help the black community why would they not attack these issues instead of the relatively small, but highly publicized, issue of racially fueled police brutality. My assumption is that the people involved in the BLM leadership are privileged, bored, and looking for fame. In my opinion, all the money that is going towards BLM could be going to actually saving lives and making the world a better place. Please, someone tell me why money is better spent on a problem that affects hundreds when the same money could be used much more efficiently to address a problem that affects hundreds of thousands?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Why don't the ppl who campaign for breast cancer or liver cancer, do away with all that, n focus on lung cancer because that's biggest cancer killer ?

Good question. Now we’re getting somewhere. The reason people campaign for certain types of cancer, I would assume, is because it personally affected them or someone they know. Which in the end works out because more people affected=more people supporting the cause. This is where the inherent issue with BLM comes into play. Washington Post states ~230 shootings of African Americans last year. ~40. The ratio of people affected to people campaigning is nuts. To put this in prospective, 450 people die falling out of bed each year. As far as I know, 0 people are members of organizations against mattress manufacturers.

Now, when there are cases in the news about people being killed by police unjustly I think that it’s right to stand up and say that’s wrong. And when they get off people have the right to protest and I think they should. The part that I find ridiculous, is that BLM is one of the most prominent activist organizations in America currently and they’re focusing on such a small problem. And on top of that, they’re using a title that insinuates they’re there for a whole community when in fact they’re only focusing on such a specific, over publicized, problem. I think that’s part of their game “Black Lives Matter” sounds like such a nice thing to get behind. If only it was for a cause that is actually detrimental to the black community like diabetes, crime, drugs etc.

You did not answer my question.

 

[J.W.Hardin]

I want to start by saying I’m all for criminal justice reform (especially losing the incarceration rate in the US). I’m all for cops going to jail when they do something illegal. However, I don’t understand how the cause entitled “Black Lives Matter” could be about police brutality. I understand that some police are prejudice and that can lead to unjust killings. The thing is, these unjust killings aren’t even close to the number one problem plaguing black communities. Technically it’s heart disease, then cancer. Even assault (about 90% of which is black on black according to the FBI) makes the top ten list of killers of African Americans. And what about the things that ruin families and communities even if they don’t necessarily cause death, such as incarceration/recidivism rates, unemployment/underemployment and selling/using drugs. My question is, if BLM really wanted to help the black community why would they not attack these issues instead of the relatively small, but highly publicized, issue of racially fueled police brutality. My assumption is that the people involved in the BLM leadership are privileged, bored, and looking for fame. In my opinion, all the money that is going towards BLM could be going to actually saving lives and making the world a better place. Please, someone tell me why money is better spent on a problem that affects hundreds when the same money could be used much more efficiently to address a problem that affects hundreds of thousands?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Why don't the ppl who campaign for breast cancer or liver cancer, do away with all that, n focus on lung cancer because that's biggest cancer killer ?

Good question. Now we’re getting somewhere. The reason people campaign for certain types of cancer, I would assume, is because it personally affected them or someone they know. Which in the end works out because more people affected=more people supporting the cause. This is where the inherent issue with BLM comes into play. Washington Post states ~230 shootings of African Americans last year. ~40. The ratio of people affected to people campaigning is nuts. To put this in prospective, 450 people die falling out of bed each year. As far as I know, 0 people are members of organizations against mattress manufacturers.

Now, when there are cases in the news about people being killed by police unjustly I think that it’s right to stand up and say that’s wrong. And when they get off people have the right to protest and I think they should. The part that I find ridiculous, is that BLM is one of the most prominent activist organizations in America currently and they’re focusing on such a small problem. And on top of that, they’re using a title that insinuates they’re there for a whole community when in fact they’re only focusing on such a specific, over publicized, problem. I think that’s part of their game “Black Lives Matter” sounds like such a nice thing to get behind. If only it was for a cause that is actually detrimental to the black community like diabetes, crime, drugs etc.

You did not answer my question.

Yes I did. Please see paragraph one lines 2-5. Question: why do people campaign for different types of cancer? Answer: “The reason people campaign for certain types of cancer, I would assume, is because it personally affected them or someone they know.”

And then after I answered you I got to say a lot more of the opinions that I wanted to express.

Please read carefully before responding next time. I wouldn’t have quoted you if I didn’t plan to answer your excellent question.

 

[Paul Essien]

I want to start by saying I’m all for criminal justice reform (especially losing the incarceration rate in the US). I’m all for cops going to jail when they do something illegal. However, I don’t understand how the cause entitled “Black Lives Matter” could be about police brutality. I understand that some police are prejudice and that can lead to unjust killings. The thing is, these unjust killings aren’t even close to the number one problem plaguing black communities. Technically it’s heart disease, then cancer. Even assault (about 90% of which is black on black according to the FBI) makes the top ten list of killers of African Americans. And what about the things that ruin families and communities even if they don’t necessarily cause death, such as incarceration/recidivism rates, unemployment/underemployment and selling/using drugs. My question is, if BLM really wanted to help the black community why would they not attack these issues instead of the relatively small, but highly publicized, issue of racially fueled police brutality. My assumption is that the people involved in the BLM leadership are privileged, bored, and looking for fame. In my opinion, all the money that is going towards BLM could be going to actually saving lives and making the world a better place. Please, someone tell me why money is better spent on a problem that affects hundreds when the same money could be used much more efficiently to address a problem that affects hundreds of thousands?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Why don't the ppl who campaign for breast cancer or liver cancer, do away with all that, n focus on lung cancer because that's biggest cancer killer ?

Good question. Now we’re getting somewhere. The reason people campaign for certain types of cancer, I would assume, is because it personally affected them or someone they know. Which in the end works out because more people affected=more people supporting the cause. This is where the inherent issue with BLM comes into play. Washington Post states ~230 shootings of African Americans last year. ~40. The ratio of people affected to people campaigning is nuts. To put this in prospective, 450 people die falling out of bed each year. As far as I know, 0 people are members of organizations against mattress manufacturers.

Now, when there are cases in the news about people being killed by police unjustly I think that it’s right to stand up and say that’s wrong. And when they get off people have the right to protest and I think they should. The part that I find ridiculous, is that BLM is one of the most prominent activist organizations in America currently and they’re focusing on such a small problem. And on top of that, they’re using a title that insinuates they’re there for a whole community when in fact they’re only focusing on such a specific, over publicized, problem. I think that’s part of their game “Black Lives Matter” sounds like such a nice thing to get behind. If only it was for a cause that is actually detrimental to the black community like diabetes, crime, drugs etc.

You did not answer my question.

Yes I did. Please see paragraph one lines 2-5. Question: why do people campaign for different types of cancer? Answer: “The reason people campaign for certain types of cancer, I would assume, is because it personally affected them or someone they know.”

And then after I answered you I got to say a lot more of the opinions that I wanted to express.

Please read carefully before responding next time. I wouldn’t have quoted you if I didn’t plan to answer your excellent question.

So if you say that people who campaign for breast cancer do it because they know someone who has breast cancer ?

Then does that justify them not bothering with lung cancer which is the biggest cancer killer ?

 

[J.W.Hardin]

[/QUOTE]So if you say that people who campaign for breast cancer do it because they know someone who has breast cancer ?

Then does that justify them not bothering with lung cancer which is the biggest cancer killer ?[/QUOTE]

Ok you went from having a good analogous question, to a totally unrelated topic from the original post. I cannot answer your question of whether or not a person who donates to one cancer foundation and not another is justified that’s probably a question best suited for an ethicist.

A better analogy would be if there was a cancer foundation called “Fight Cancer” who’s only goal was to find a cure for Adenoacanthoma - a very rare cancer. And then the leaders of this organization would get on TV and talk about how they are fighting for everyone with cancer. When in reality they’re fighting for a very, very small percentage of a people.

 

[Paul Essien]

So if you say that people who campaign for breast cancer do it because they know someone who has breast cancer ?

Then does that justify them not bothering with lung cancer which is the biggest cancer killer ?[/QUOTE]

Ok you went from having a good analogous question, to a totally unrelated topic from the original post. I cannot answer your question of whether or not a person who donates to one cancer foundation and not another is justified that’s probably a question best suited for an ethicist.

A better analogy would be if there was a cancer foundation called “Fight Cancer” who’s only goal was to find a cure for Adenoacanthoma - a very rare cancer. And then the leaders of this organization would get on TV and talk about how they are fighting for everyone with cancer. When in reality they’re fighting for a very, very small percentage of a people.[/QUOTE]Isnt that what I just said ?

I don't know why you found my question so hard. It was pretty straight forward. But let's run with your own analogy.

So the people who r tryna find a cure for Adenoacantnoma should not worry about that and focus on lung cancer because that is the biggest cancer killer ?

 

[J.W.Hardin]

So if you say that people who campaign for breast cancer do it because they know someone who has breast cancer ?

Then does that justify them not bothering with lung cancer which is the biggest cancer killer ?

Ok you went from having a good analogous question, to a totally unrelated topic from the original post. I cannot answer your question of whether or not a person who donates to one cancer foundation and not another is justified that’s probably a question best suited for an ethicist.

A better analogy would be if there was a cancer foundation called “Fight Cancer” who’s only goal was to find a cure for Adenoacanthoma - a very rare cancer. And then the leaders of this organization would get on TV and talk about how they are fighting for everyone with cancer. When in reality they’re fighting for a very, very small percentage of a people.[/QUOTE]Isnt that what I just said ?

I don't know why you found my question so hard. It was pretty straight forward. But let's run with your own analogy.

So the people who r tryna find a cure for Adenoacantnoma should not worry about that and focus on lung cancer because that is the biggest cancer killer ?[/QUOTE]

Well close, but not quite. The point is the reaction shouldn’t be bigger than the issue.

I don’t think we’re getting anywhere with asking me questions. Let me ask you one.

Say you have the opportunity with the money and power that you have to save 50,000 lives. But if you chose instead to try to save only 40 you would get a bunch of money for yourself, a career path for yourself and probably get to go on TV a few times. Which one would you pick?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

It shouldn't even be a question that black lives matter. Of course they do. The black lives matter movement, however, was orchestrated after two events involving black criminals being met with lethal force

In one incident, a black criminal beat a Latino man's head into the pavement until it was a bloody pulp. The Latino man, fearing for his life, shot him. The other incident involved a black criminal who had just robbed a convenience store attempt to wrestle the gun from the cop who arrested him and then advance on the cop in a menacing fashion. The cop shot him.

We're not exactly talking rosa parks here, folks. We are talking criminal behavior and the consequences the criminals received.

Now , neither of these incidents involving black criminals would have been noteworthy if it were't for one thing - a media built around creating controversy in order to generate income. Controversy sells. Whipping up a race war sells. Pitting groups against each other sells. Creating imaginary grievances sells.

Lost on all of this is the fact that BLM is a movement built around criminals. As such, it isn't a search for justice but an attempt to avoid it. This isn't 1960 with honorable people objecting to actual racism. It is 2017 with dishonorable people trying to divorce criminal conduct from consequences by whipping up a false narrative based upon skin color.

 

[edge]

I want to start by saying I’m all for criminal justice reform (especially losing the incarceration rate in the US). I’m all for cops going to jail when they do something illegal. However, I don’t understand how the cause entitled “Black Lives Matter” could be about police brutality. I understand that some police are prejudice and that can lead to unjust killings. The thing is, these unjust killings aren’t even close to the number one problem plaguing black communities. Technically it’s heart disease, then cancer. Even assault (about 90% of which is black on black according to the FBI) makes the top ten list of killers of African Americans. And what about the things that ruin families and communities even if they don’t necessarily cause death, such as incarceration/recidivism rates, unemployment/underemployment and selling/using drugs. My question is, if BLM really wanted to help the black community why would they not attack these issues instead of the relatively small, but highly publicized, issue of racially fueled police brutality. My assumption is that the people involved in the BLM leadership are privileged, bored, and looking for fame. In my opinion, all the money that is going towards BLM could be going to actually saving lives and making the world a better place. Please, someone tell me why money is better spent on a problem that affects hundreds when the same money could be used much more efficiently to address a problem that affects hundreds of thousands?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

To reply to the statement the title of your thread made, there are those who would say that black lives don't matter.

 

[Paul Essien]

I want to start by saying I’m all for criminal justice reform (especially losing the incarceration rate in the US). I’m all for cops going to jail when they do something illegal. However, I don’t understand how the cause entitled “Black Lives Matter” could be about police brutality. I understand that some police are prejudice and that can lead to unjust killings. The thing is, these unjust killings aren’t even close to the number one problem plaguing black communities. Technically it’s heart disease, then cancer. Even assault (about 90% of which is black on black according to the FBI) makes the top ten list of killers of African Americans. And what about the things that ruin families and communities even if they don’t necessarily cause death, such as incarceration/recidivism rates, unemployment/underemployment and selling/using drugs. My question is, if BLM really wanted to help the black community why would they not attack these issues instead of the relatively small, but highly publicized, issue of racially fueled police brutality. My assumption is that the people involved in the BLM leadership are privileged, bored, and looking for fame. In my opinion, all the money that is going towards BLM could be going to actually saving lives and making the world a better place. Please, someone tell me why money is better spent on a problem that affects hundreds when the same money could be used much more efficiently to address a problem that affects hundreds of thousands?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Let me explain something

Are more black people killed by heart disease than by the Police.

Yes. But guess what ?

That would have been true 100 years ago.

That would have been true under apartheid in South Africa. That would have been true under Jim Crow segregation in the USA.

But would the black heart disease argument been a good reason to excuse for the KKK hangings of black men ? Would the black heart disease argument been a good reason to excuse the kilings of black people by Police 100 years ago ?

No. So why is it now ?

Secondly the black people killed by black people will always be higher than black ppl killed by the police. Why ? Because those are the people you live around. The same way the white on white killings will be higher than police on white.

When ISIS killed white people in Paris or 9-11 Twin Towers you did not hear people say "Well, more white people kill white people, than muslims""

That would have been just as true.

The police are held to a higher standard. That's why police killings of black people cause the commotion that they do. Because if you have the power to kill me, then you better believe I'm gonna hold you to a higher standard.

It's the same way a teacher can't be late often for their class and then turn around and say "Well some of you are late too"

With great power comes greater responsibility. They are the rules.