It is NOT racism

[Montrovant]

The percentage of white crime is equal to the percentage of population. While percentage of black crime is over double of their population. What is your point other than the one on your head?

If we go by your simple minded assessment you are saying it's fine for whites to commit 70 percent of the crimes.

Simple minded assessment? What percentage of crimes do you think would be appropriate for whites to commit?

Yes it's a simple minded assessment. I don't think the argument that posits that if you commit 68 percent of all crimes somehow is less than the 28 percent the other group commits because that's less than your percentage of the population.

gitimaeaegument.

Anyone who says that 68% is less than 28% is clearly wrong.

However, I think the argument generally is about the comparison of crimes committed compared to percentage of the population.

And that's an illegitimate argument. There are over 300 million people here. So lets use 300 million as the number. 2.2 million blacks were arrested. That is less than 1 percent of the total American population. 5.8 million whites arrested is about 2 percent of the Amrcan population. These are the ONLY people that can be accurately counted in crimes. If a disproportionate number of blacks relative to our population in the NBA are black, that doesn't mean blacks are more predisposed to be basketball players. Therefore the comparison being made is only done because it's one way whites here can excuse or deny what they do in order to maintain a belief in white supremacy. Just like they do for every other issue we present.

I didn't make any comment about a higher percentage of blacks being arrested or convicted meaning blacks are more disposed to criminality.

 

[IM2]

If we go by your simple minded assessment you are saying it's fine for whites to commit 70 percent of the crimes.

Simple minded assessment? What percentage of crimes do you think would be appropriate for whites to commit?

Yes it's a simple minded assessment. I don't think the argument that posits that if you commit 68 percent of all crimes somehow is less than the 28 percent the other group commits because that's less than your percentage of the population.

gitimaeaegument.

Anyone who says that 68% is less than 28% is clearly wrong.

However, I think the argument generally is about the comparison of crimes committed compared to percentage of the population.

And that's an illegitimate argument. There are over 300 million people here. So lets use 300 million as the number. 2.2 million blacks were arrested. That is less than 1 percent of the total American population. 5.8 million whites arrested is about 2 percent of the Amrcan population. These are the ONLY people that can be accurately counted in crimes. If a disproportionate number of blacks relative to our population in the NBA are black, that doesn't mean blacks are more predisposed to be basketball players. Therefore the comparison being made is only done because it's one way whites here can excuse or deny what they do in order to maintain a belief in white supremacy. Just like they do for every other issue we present.

I didn't make any comment about a higher percentage of blacks being arrested or convicted meaning blacks are more disposed to criminality.

Try reading posts with the understanding that we are discussing everything that has been said.

 

[Asclepias]

Whites do not commit the more violent crimes. I would rather have someone steal my apple than shoot me for that apple.

Whites absolutely commit more violent crimes. You have way more chance of getting shot by a white person for your apple than a Black person.

Whites committed almost 4k murders. Mostly other whites.

They committed nearly 9k rapes. Mostly against other whites.

You need more?

Not in my area. And again, per capita does matter.

Unless you live in a Black area the facts are that you are more likely to be killed by a white person.

Per capita only matters to excuse white criminality. Its a bogus stat that doesnt mean anything because the most important data that should be considered is not tracked.

 

[gallantwarrior]

It's not a fact, though, is it?

Blacks killing other blacks is considered normal in most major cities. ...

Normal to the point that they don't even blink an eye. Imagine if they raised as much hell about blacks shooting other blacks as they do about a police officer executing his/her duty (regardless of race).

 

[Asclepias]

You admit, dave p, that whites commit almost 70% of the crimes.

What is their percentage of population in the country.

The percentage of white crime is equal to the percentage of population. While percentage of black crime is over double of their population. What is your point other than the one on your head?

If we go by your simple minded assessment you are saying it's fine for whites to commit 70 percent of the crimes.

Simple minded assessment? What percentage of crimes do you think would be appropriate for whites to commit?

Less than 28% but the ultimate goal is 0%. Blacks commit crime due to financial reason for the most part. If finances were not a problem we would probably have a 3% crime rate.

So you want whites to be responsible for none of the crimes committed, leaving that for all other races? How would that be a positive thing? We'll ignore how completely irrational it is to think an entire race, particularly one that makes up most of the population, would not commit any of the crimes. Of course, since you brought up 28%, it seems as if you were actually talking about crimes committed by blacks rather than whites.

I would guess that economic status/financial issues are a motivation for many crimes by people of all races. However, people commit a whole lot of crimes based on things completely separate from finances.

Correct. Whites own the system so they literally have no reason to commit crimes. They should have an incredibly low crime rate. It would be a positive thing because overall the crime rate would drop significantly if whites were not committing 69% of the crime. Think about that for a moment. 69% of all crime gone. That would cut the crime rate by more than half. Dont get me confused. I dont think its possible for whites to do it. You asked what I thought would be appropriate. No I was talking about crimes committed by whites. Thats why I said whites instead of Blacks.

 

[dave p]

The percentage of white crime is equal to the percentage of population. While percentage of black crime is over double of their population. What is your point other than the one on your head?

If we go by your simple minded assessment you are saying it's fine for whites to commit 70 percent of the crimes.

Simple minded assessment? What percentage of crimes do you think would be appropriate for whites to commit?

Less than 28% but the ultimate goal is 0%. Blacks commit crime due to financial reason for the most part. If finances were not a problem we would probably have a 3% crime rate.

So you want whites to be responsible for none of the crimes committed, leaving that for all other races? How would that be a positive thing? We'll ignore how completely irrational it is to think an entire race, particularly one that makes up most of the population, would not commit any of the crimes. Of course, since you brought up 28%, it seems as if you were actually talking about crimes committed by blacks rather than whites.

I would guess that economic status/financial issues are a motivation for many crimes by people of all races. However, people commit a whole lot of crimes based on things completely separate from finances.

Correct. Whites own the system so they literally have no reason to commit crimes. They should have an incredibly low crime rate. It would be a positive thing because overall the crime rate would drop significantly if whites were not committing 69% of the crime. Think about that for a moment. 69% of all crime gone. That would cut the crime rate by more than half. Dont get me confused. I dont think its possible for whites to do it. You asked what I thought would be appropriate. No I was talking about crimes committed by whites. Thats why I said whites instead of Blacks.

What does " owning the system" ( whatever that means ) have to do with crime rates?

 

[IM2]

It's not a fact, though, is it?

Blacks killing other blacks is considered normal in most major cities. ...

Normal to the point that they don't even blink an eye. Imagine if they raised as much hell about blacks shooting other blacks as they do about a police officer executing his/her duty (regardless of race).

More dumb whiteness.

 

[Asclepias]

If we go by your simple minded assessment you are saying it's fine for whites to commit 70 percent of the crimes.

Simple minded assessment? What percentage of crimes do you think would be appropriate for whites to commit?

Less than 28% but the ultimate goal is 0%. Blacks commit crime due to financial reason for the most part. If finances were not a problem we would probably have a 3% crime rate.

So you want whites to be responsible for none of the crimes committed, leaving that for all other races? How would that be a positive thing? We'll ignore how completely irrational it is to think an entire race, particularly one that makes up most of the population, would not commit any of the crimes. Of course, since you brought up 28%, it seems as if you were actually talking about crimes committed by blacks rather than whites.

I would guess that economic status/financial issues are a motivation for many crimes by people of all races. However, people commit a whole lot of crimes based on things completely separate from finances.

Correct. Whites own the system so they literally have no reason to commit crimes. They should have an incredibly low crime rate. It would be a positive thing because overall the crime rate would drop significantly if whites were not committing 69% of the crime. Think about that for a moment. 69% of all crime gone. That would cut the crime rate by more than half. Dont get me confused. I dont think its possible for whites to do it. You asked what I thought would be appropriate. No I was talking about crimes committed by whites. Thats why I said whites instead of Blacks.

What does " owning the system" ( whatever that means ) have to do with crime rates?

If you dont understand this elementary dynamic then you need to get yourself educated then come back and apologize to me for asking such an ignorant question.

 

[Montrovant]

The percentage of white crime is equal to the percentage of population. While percentage of black crime is over double of their population. What is your point other than the one on your head?

If we go by your simple minded assessment you are saying it's fine for whites to commit 70 percent of the crimes.

Simple minded assessment? What percentage of crimes do you think would be appropriate for whites to commit?

Less than 28% but the ultimate goal is 0%. Blacks commit crime due to financial reason for the most part. If finances were not a problem we would probably have a 3% crime rate.

So you want whites to be responsible for none of the crimes committed, leaving that for all other races? How would that be a positive thing? We'll ignore how completely irrational it is to think an entire race, particularly one that makes up most of the population, would not commit any of the crimes. Of course, since you brought up 28%, it seems as if you were actually talking about crimes committed by blacks rather than whites.

I would guess that economic status/financial issues are a motivation for many crimes by people of all races. However, people commit a whole lot of crimes based on things completely separate from finances.

But you don't ignore how irrational it is to think that because you have the most people you get to excuse the fact that you commit the most crimes. Especially when you have the most of all the things that are supposed to prevent crime.

What are the things that are supposed to prevent crime that whites have more of than others?

I haven't said anything about the underlying reasons behind rates of crime, I don't believe.

Nor, that I can recall, have you argued here about the reasons for why crime rates might be different among different races. At least, I don't recall you saying anything like "yes, blacks have a higher crime rate, but that is due to XXXXX." Instead, your argument seems to have consisted of "Whites commit more crimes, and that's the only important statistics, regardless of total population numbers."

Obviously the reasons behind the differences in crime rates among races is an important part of the conversation. I've brought it up very briefly in this thread. Systemic bias in the legal system, economic status, cultural issues, there are any number of factors that might combine to account for the discrepancy in crime rate.

The ideal would be for every racial group to have a criminal representation approximate to their population number.

 

[IM2]

If we go by your simple minded assessment you are saying it's fine for whites to commit 70 percent of the crimes.

Simple minded assessment? What percentage of crimes do you think would be appropriate for whites to commit?

Less than 28% but the ultimate goal is 0%. Blacks commit crime due to financial reason for the most part. If finances were not a problem we would probably have a 3% crime rate.

So you want whites to be responsible for none of the crimes committed, leaving that for all other races? How would that be a positive thing? We'll ignore how completely irrational it is to think an entire race, particularly one that makes up most of the population, would not commit any of the crimes. Of course, since you brought up 28%, it seems as if you were actually talking about crimes committed by blacks rather than whites.

I would guess that economic status/financial issues are a motivation for many crimes by people of all races. However, people commit a whole lot of crimes based on things completely separate from finances.

Correct. Whites own the system so they literally have no reason to commit crimes. They should have an incredibly low crime rate. It would be a positive thing because overall the crime rate would drop significantly if whites were not committing 69% of the crime. Think about that for a moment. 69% of all crime gone. That would cut the crime rate by more than half. Dont get me confused. I dont think its possible for whites to do it. You asked what I thought would be appropriate. No I was talking about crimes committed by whites. Thats why I said whites instead of Blacks.

What does " owning the system" ( whatever that means ) have to do with crime rates?

It means you whites don't have the things people who study crime know are factors that cause crime but you still commit the most crime.

 

[Asclepias]

Simple minded assessment? What percentage of crimes do you think would be appropriate for whites to commit?

Less than 28% but the ultimate goal is 0%. Blacks commit crime due to financial reason for the most part. If finances were not a problem we would probably have a 3% crime rate.

So you want whites to be responsible for none of the crimes committed, leaving that for all other races? How would that be a positive thing? We'll ignore how completely irrational it is to think an entire race, particularly one that makes up most of the population, would not commit any of the crimes. Of course, since you brought up 28%, it seems as if you were actually talking about crimes committed by blacks rather than whites.

I would guess that economic status/financial issues are a motivation for many crimes by people of all races. However, people commit a whole lot of crimes based on things completely separate from finances.

Correct. Whites own the system so they literally have no reason to commit crimes. They should have an incredibly low crime rate. It would be a positive thing because overall the crime rate would drop significantly if whites were not committing 69% of the crime. Think about that for a moment. 69% of all crime gone. That would cut the crime rate by more than half. Dont get me confused. I dont think its possible for whites to do it. You asked what I thought would be appropriate. No I was talking about crimes committed by whites. Thats why I said whites instead of Blacks.

What does " owning the system" ( whatever that means ) have to do with crime rates?

It means you whites don't have the things people who study crime know are factors that cause crime but you still commit the most crime.

Thanks for educating him. I didnt have the patience to deal with such blatant ignorance.

 

[dave p]

Simple minded assessment? What percentage of crimes do you think would be appropriate for whites to commit?

Less than 28% but the ultimate goal is 0%. Blacks commit crime due to financial reason for the most part. If finances were not a problem we would probably have a 3% crime rate.

So you want whites to be responsible for none of the crimes committed, leaving that for all other races? How would that be a positive thing? We'll ignore how completely irrational it is to think an entire race, particularly one that makes up most of the population, would not commit any of the crimes. Of course, since you brought up 28%, it seems as if you were actually talking about crimes committed by blacks rather than whites.

I would guess that economic status/financial issues are a motivation for many crimes by people of all races. However, people commit a whole lot of crimes based on things completely separate from finances.

Correct. Whites own the system so they literally have no reason to commit crimes. They should have an incredibly low crime rate. It would be a positive thing because overall the crime rate would drop significantly if whites were not committing 69% of the crime. Think about that for a moment. 69% of all crime gone. That would cut the crime rate by more than half. Dont get me confused. I dont think its possible for whites to do it. You asked what I thought would be appropriate. No I was talking about crimes committed by whites. Thats why I said whites instead of Blacks.

What does " owning the system" ( whatever that means ) have to do with crime rates?

If you dont understand this elementary dynamic then you need to get yourself educated then come back and apologize to me for asking such an ignorant question.

My education is fine. Your ignorant statement is the problem. You are saying there are no black lawmakers, no black lawyers, no black judges, no black police officers. I wont apologize to a moron that misstates information in an attempt to support his weak narrative.

 

[Montrovant]

The percentage of white crime is equal to the percentage of population. While percentage of black crime is over double of their population. What is your point other than the one on your head?

If we go by your simple minded assessment you are saying it's fine for whites to commit 70 percent of the crimes.

Simple minded assessment? What percentage of crimes do you think would be appropriate for whites to commit?

Less than 28% but the ultimate goal is 0%. Blacks commit crime due to financial reason for the most part. If finances were not a problem we would probably have a 3% crime rate.

So you want whites to be responsible for none of the crimes committed, leaving that for all other races? How would that be a positive thing? We'll ignore how completely irrational it is to think an entire race, particularly one that makes up most of the population, would not commit any of the crimes. Of course, since you brought up 28%, it seems as if you were actually talking about crimes committed by blacks rather than whites.

I would guess that economic status/financial issues are a motivation for many crimes by people of all races. However, people commit a whole lot of crimes based on things completely separate from finances.

Correct. Whites own the system so they literally have no reason to commit crimes. They should have an incredibly low crime rate. It would be a positive thing because overall the crime rate would drop significantly if whites were not committing 69% of the crime. Think about that for a moment. 69% of all crime gone. That would cut the crime rate by more than half. Dont get me confused. I dont think its possible for whites to do it. You asked what I thought would be appropriate. No I was talking about crimes committed by whites. Thats why I said whites instead of Blacks.

And yet whites commit crimes just like members of any race. Perhaps that should make you rethink just what "whites own the system" actually means.

You also are having a hard time with the idea of percentages. Whites commit 69% of crimes. I asked what percentage of crimes is appropriate for whites to commit. Changing the percentage of crimes whites commit has no effect on the actual number of crimes being committed. I asked about the percentage. Let's go back to apples, since you seem to like them as an example. If there are 100 apples, and whites have 70 of them, they have 70% of the apples. If I ask what an appropriate percentage of apples for whites to have is, and you say 0, there are still 100 apples, whites just don't have any of them.

Of course if whites stopped committing crimes it would lower the total number of crimes significantly, which would be good. That wasn't the question. I didn't ask how many crimes whites should commit, but what percentage of crimes committed should appropriately be done by whites.

 

[Asclepias]

If we go by your simple minded assessment you are saying it's fine for whites to commit 70 percent of the crimes.

Simple minded assessment? What percentage of crimes do you think would be appropriate for whites to commit?

Less than 28% but the ultimate goal is 0%. Blacks commit crime due to financial reason for the most part. If finances were not a problem we would probably have a 3% crime rate.

So you want whites to be responsible for none of the crimes committed, leaving that for all other races? How would that be a positive thing? We'll ignore how completely irrational it is to think an entire race, particularly one that makes up most of the population, would not commit any of the crimes. Of course, since you brought up 28%, it seems as if you were actually talking about crimes committed by blacks rather than whites.

I would guess that economic status/financial issues are a motivation for many crimes by people of all races. However, people commit a whole lot of crimes based on things completely separate from finances.

Correct. Whites own the system so they literally have no reason to commit crimes. They should have an incredibly low crime rate. It would be a positive thing because overall the crime rate would drop significantly if whites were not committing 69% of the crime. Think about that for a moment. 69% of all crime gone. That would cut the crime rate by more than half. Dont get me confused. I dont think its possible for whites to do it. You asked what I thought would be appropriate. No I was talking about crimes committed by whites. Thats why I said whites instead of Blacks.

And yet whites commit crimes just like members of any race. Perhaps that should make you rethink just what "whites own the system" actually means.

You also are having a hard time with the idea of percentages. Whites commit 69% of crimes. I asked what percentage of crimes is appropriate for whites to commit. Changing the percentage of crimes whites commit has no effect on the actual number of crimes being committed. I asked about the percentage. Let's go back to apples, since you seem to like them as an example. If there are 100 apples, and whites have 70 of them, they have 70% of the apples. If I ask what an appropriate percentage of apples for whites to have is, and you say 0, there are still 100 apples, whites just don't have any of them.

Of course if whites stopped committing crimes it would lower the total number of crimes significantly, which would be good. That wasn't the question. I didn't ask how many crimes whites should commit, but what percentage of crimes committed should appropriately be done by whites.

True. I think criminality for whites is directly attributable to either genetics or philosophy. Whites come from a land of scares resources. Blacks come from a land of plenty. When you lack (resources, melanin, positive philosophy etc) you are prone to crime and violence. At some point it becomes a genetic thing passed down like skin color. What else would make an already wealthy white person scam others out of billions? What would make whites lie about not stealing more NA land treaty after treaty? What would make whites commit criminal acts to keep Blacks from voting? They cant help it because its ingrained in their DNA or philosophy.

That makes no sense. If whites stopped committing 69% of the crime then that crime is gone from total crime. Does this make sense to you or are you claiming that other races will pick up the slack?

Apples are analogous to crime. If whites have no crime then 69 of the 100 apples are no longer there.

 

[IM2]

If we go by your simple minded assessment you are saying it's fine for whites to commit 70 percent of the crimes.

Simple minded assessment? What percentage of crimes do you think would be appropriate for whites to commit?

Less than 28% but the ultimate goal is 0%. Blacks commit crime due to financial reason for the most part. If finances were not a problem we would probably have a 3% crime rate.

So you want whites to be responsible for none of the crimes committed, leaving that for all other races? How would that be a positive thing? We'll ignore how completely irrational it is to think an entire race, particularly one that makes up most of the population, would not commit any of the crimes. Of course, since you brought up 28%, it seems as if you were actually talking about crimes committed by blacks rather than whites.

I would guess that economic status/financial issues are a motivation for many crimes by people of all races. However, people commit a whole lot of crimes based on things completely separate from finances.

But you don't ignore how irrational it is to think that because you have the most people you get to excuse the fact that you commit the most crimes. Especially when you have the most of all the things that are supposed to prevent crime.

What are the things that are supposed to prevent crime that whites have more of than others?

I haven't said anything about the underlying reasons behind rates of crime, I don't believe.

Nor, that I can recall, have you argued here about the reasons for why crime rates might be different among different races. At least, I don't recall you saying anything like "yes, blacks have a higher crime rate, but that is due to XXXXX." Instead, your argument seems to have consisted of "Whites commit more crimes, and that's the only important statistics, regardless of total population numbers."

Obviously the reasons behind the differences in crime rates among races is an important part of the conversation. I've brought it up very briefly in this thread. Systemic bias in the legal system, economic status, cultural issues, there are any number of factors that might combine to account for the discrepancy in crime rate.

The ideal would be for every racial group to have a criminal representation approximate to their population number.

Because crime rates are bullshit. These people here are not considering any other factor but we are black and we commit more crimes. I reject that argument. Every year since 1994, I have seen the same thing. Whites arrested for at least double the crimes of blacks. So fuck crime rates and how you think each race should be criminally represented.

I'm out of patience with this. Whites have pointed fingers at us for being violent long enough. Whites have been the most violent and criminal of all the races here since America began. And to keep allowing whites to continue making up these lies is getting innocent blacks killed by police who believe this lie. Whites have murdered millions in this nation. They have robbed and stolen from people using any means they can. They have raped and molested chldren, committed mass killings and have committed more crimes than every other race combined.

So if whites can't face their actions, stop blaming others when whites are the ones committing the most crime and violence. Whites have done this to themselves and unless you choose to fix yourselves, you will keep doing it to yourselves. You may not like what I say but I think it's more important that you understand that blacks don't like what whites keep doing.

 

[Montrovant]

Simple minded assessment? What percentage of crimes do you think would be appropriate for whites to commit?

Less than 28% but the ultimate goal is 0%. Blacks commit crime due to financial reason for the most part. If finances were not a problem we would probably have a 3% crime rate.

So you want whites to be responsible for none of the crimes committed, leaving that for all other races? How would that be a positive thing? We'll ignore how completely irrational it is to think an entire race, particularly one that makes up most of the population, would not commit any of the crimes. Of course, since you brought up 28%, it seems as if you were actually talking about crimes committed by blacks rather than whites.

I would guess that economic status/financial issues are a motivation for many crimes by people of all races. However, people commit a whole lot of crimes based on things completely separate from finances.

Correct. Whites own the system so they literally have no reason to commit crimes. They should have an incredibly low crime rate. It would be a positive thing because overall the crime rate would drop significantly if whites were not committing 69% of the crime. Think about that for a moment. 69% of all crime gone. That would cut the crime rate by more than half. Dont get me confused. I dont think its possible for whites to do it. You asked what I thought would be appropriate. No I was talking about crimes committed by whites. Thats why I said whites instead of Blacks.

And yet whites commit crimes just like members of any race. Perhaps that should make you rethink just what "whites own the system" actually means.

You also are having a hard time with the idea of percentages. Whites commit 69% of crimes. I asked what percentage of crimes is appropriate for whites to commit. Changing the percentage of crimes whites commit has no effect on the actual number of crimes being committed. I asked about the percentage. Let's go back to apples, since you seem to like them as an example. If there are 100 apples, and whites have 70 of them, they have 70% of the apples. If I ask what an appropriate percentage of apples for whites to have is, and you say 0, there are still 100 apples, whites just don't have any of them.

Of course if whites stopped committing crimes it would lower the total number of crimes significantly, which would be good. That wasn't the question. I didn't ask how many crimes whites should commit, but what percentage of crimes committed should appropriately be done by whites.

True. I think criminality for whites is directly attributable to either genetics or philosophy. Whites come from a land of scares resources. Blacks come from a land of plenty. When you lack (resources, melanin, positive philosophy etc) you are prone to crime and violence. At some point it becomes a genetic thing passed down like skin color. What else would make an already wealthy white person scam others out of billions? What would make whites lie about not stealing more NA land treaty after treaty? What would make whites commit criminal acts to keep Blacks from voting? They cant help it because its ingrained in their DNA or philosophy.

That makes no sense. If whites stopped committing 69% of the crime then that crime is gone from total crime. Does this make sense to you or are you claiming that other races will pick up the slack?

Apples are analogous to crime. If whites have no crime then 69 of the 100 apples are no longer there.

Well, if you want to use the same sort of arguments that anti-black racists use, have at it.

Again, I asked about what an appropriate percentage of whites committing crime would be, not about the number of crimes. It makes perfect sense. If whites commit 69% of crimes, and that is for some reason a problem, what would be a percentage of crimes that whites commit that would be appropriate? I didn't ask how many fewer crimes should be committed overall, or how many fewer whites should commit crimes, just what percentage of overall crimes being committed by whites is appropriate. If whites committed 50% of all crimes (while still being 60-75% of the population, depending on the numbers you are using) would that be appropriate? Is it appropriate for other races to commit a higher percentage of crimes than their percentage of the total population?

To once again give you an example, if there were 100 crimes committed in the US last year, and whites committed 69 of them, apparently that's a problem. So I'm asking, if there are 100 crimes committed, how many would it be acceptable for whites to have committed? Of course if you just get rid of 69 out of 100 crimes, that's good. I'm not asking that, though, because that isn't what I was replying to. I replied to a comment about whites committing 69% of crimes not being acceptable.

 

[Asclepias]

Less than 28% but the ultimate goal is 0%. Blacks commit crime due to financial reason for the most part. If finances were not a problem we would probably have a 3% crime rate.

So you want whites to be responsible for none of the crimes committed, leaving that for all other races? How would that be a positive thing? We'll ignore how completely irrational it is to think an entire race, particularly one that makes up most of the population, would not commit any of the crimes. Of course, since you brought up 28%, it seems as if you were actually talking about crimes committed by blacks rather than whites.

I would guess that economic status/financial issues are a motivation for many crimes by people of all races. However, people commit a whole lot of crimes based on things completely separate from finances.

Correct. Whites own the system so they literally have no reason to commit crimes. They should have an incredibly low crime rate. It would be a positive thing because overall the crime rate would drop significantly if whites were not committing 69% of the crime. Think about that for a moment. 69% of all crime gone. That would cut the crime rate by more than half. Dont get me confused. I dont think its possible for whites to do it. You asked what I thought would be appropriate. No I was talking about crimes committed by whites. Thats why I said whites instead of Blacks.

And yet whites commit crimes just like members of any race. Perhaps that should make you rethink just what "whites own the system" actually means.

You also are having a hard time with the idea of percentages. Whites commit 69% of crimes. I asked what percentage of crimes is appropriate for whites to commit. Changing the percentage of crimes whites commit has no effect on the actual number of crimes being committed. I asked about the percentage. Let's go back to apples, since you seem to like them as an example. If there are 100 apples, and whites have 70 of them, they have 70% of the apples. If I ask what an appropriate percentage of apples for whites to have is, and you say 0, there are still 100 apples, whites just don't have any of them.

Of course if whites stopped committing crimes it would lower the total number of crimes significantly, which would be good. That wasn't the question. I didn't ask how many crimes whites should commit, but what percentage of crimes committed should appropriately be done by whites.

True. I think criminality for whites is directly attributable to either genetics or philosophy. Whites come from a land of scares resources. Blacks come from a land of plenty. When you lack (resources, melanin, positive philosophy etc) you are prone to crime and violence. At some point it becomes a genetic thing passed down like skin color. What else would make an already wealthy white person scam others out of billions? What would make whites lie about not stealing more NA land treaty after treaty? What would make whites commit criminal acts to keep Blacks from voting? They cant help it because its ingrained in their DNA or philosophy.

That makes no sense. If whites stopped committing 69% of the crime then that crime is gone from total crime. Does this make sense to you or are you claiming that other races will pick up the slack?

Apples are analogous to crime. If whites have no crime then 69 of the 100 apples are no longer there.

Well, if you want to use the same sort of arguments that anti-black racists use, have at it.

Again, I asked about what an appropriate percentage of whites committing crime would be, not about the number of crimes. It makes perfect sense. If whites commit 69% of crimes, and that is for some reason a problem, what would be a percentage of crimes that whites commit that would be appropriate? I didn't ask how many fewer crimes should be committed overall, or how many fewer whites should commit crimes, just what percentage of overall crimes being committed by whites is appropriate. If whites committed 50% of all crimes (while still being 60-75% of the population, depending on the numbers you are using) would that be appropriate? Is it appropriate for other races to commit a higher percentage of crimes than their percentage of the total population?

To once again give you an example, if there were 100 crimes committed in the US last year, and whites committed 69 of them, apparently that's a problem. So I'm asking, if there are 100 crimes committed, how many would it be acceptable for whites to have committed? Of course if you just get rid of 69 out of 100 crimes, that's good. I'm not asking that, though, because that isn't what I was replying to. I replied to a comment about whites committing 69% of crimes not being acceptable.

Again that doesnt make any sense. In order to commit a percentage of crimes whites would have to commit a specific number of crimes which would be a subset of the total crimes. I mean how can there not be a numerical value of total crimes committed yet whites still commit 69% of crimes? Its mathematically impossible to separate the 2 values. Like I said when you first asked me the question my answer was that whites should commit 0 crime. That would correlate to 0% of the crime. That would be appropriate/acceptable to me in congruence with the reasons I already gave.

 

[Montrovant]

Simple minded assessment? What percentage of crimes do you think would be appropriate for whites to commit?

Less than 28% but the ultimate goal is 0%. Blacks commit crime due to financial reason for the most part. If finances were not a problem we would probably have a 3% crime rate.

So you want whites to be responsible for none of the crimes committed, leaving that for all other races? How would that be a positive thing? We'll ignore how completely irrational it is to think an entire race, particularly one that makes up most of the population, would not commit any of the crimes. Of course, since you brought up 28%, it seems as if you were actually talking about crimes committed by blacks rather than whites.

I would guess that economic status/financial issues are a motivation for many crimes by people of all races. However, people commit a whole lot of crimes based on things completely separate from finances.

But you don't ignore how irrational it is to think that because you have the most people you get to excuse the fact that you commit the most crimes. Especially when you have the most of all the things that are supposed to prevent crime.

What are the things that are supposed to prevent crime that whites have more of than others?

I haven't said anything about the underlying reasons behind rates of crime, I don't believe.

Nor, that I can recall, have you argued here about the reasons for why crime rates might be different among different races. At least, I don't recall you saying anything like "yes, blacks have a higher crime rate, but that is due to XXXXX." Instead, your argument seems to have consisted of "Whites commit more crimes, and that's the only important statistics, regardless of total population numbers."

Obviously the reasons behind the differences in crime rates among races is an important part of the conversation. I've brought it up very briefly in this thread. Systemic bias in the legal system, economic status, cultural issues, there are any number of factors that might combine to account for the discrepancy in crime rate.

The ideal would be for every racial group to have a criminal representation approximate to their population number.

Because crime rates are bullshit. These people here are not considering any other factor but we are black and we commit more crimes. I reject that argument. Every year since 1994, I have seen the same thing. Whites arrested for at least double the crimes of blacks. So fuck crime rates and how you think each race should be criminally represented.

I'm out of patience with this. Whites have pointed fingers at us for being violent long enough. Whites have been the most violent and criminal of all the races here since America began. And to keep allowing whites to continue making up these lies is getting innocent blacks killed by police who believe this lie. Whites have murdered millions in this nation. They have robbed and stolen from people using any means they can. They have raped and molested chldren, committed mass killings and have committed more crimes than every other race combined.

So if whites can't face their actions, stop blaming others when whites are the ones committing the most crime and violence. Whites have done this to themselves and unless you choose to fix yourselves, you will keep doing it to yourselves. You may not like what I say but I think it's more important that you understand that blacks don't like what whites keep doing.

Crime rates are not bullshit. Using them to disparage an entire race of people, particularly when not taking other factors into consideration, is.

When you put forward everything you're saying in the manner you do, so often lumping all whites together while describing them as unintelligent, violent, rapists, etc. you are doing exactly the thing you are saying whites have done to blacks (as far as the lying about them goes). When you stereotype and generalize a large group of people, particularly if it's done falsely, but even if there's good reason behind it, it's bound to lead to anger and resentment. As evidence, just look at how you feel about the stereotyping of blacks as criminals. I've said before that I can understand the angry reaction, but that doesn't make it one that will be helpful for anyone involved.

That isn't an invitation to 'grin and bear it.' Blacks, and other minorities, have legitimate grievances, concerns, and worries to air in this country. I'm not so foolish as to believe that decades or centuries of oppression, abuse, and discrimination can be easily overcome; nor do I believe all of those things have been ended on a legal or societal level. I am not part of the 'racism is ended' camp, not even 'systemic racism is ended.' I think that you tend to overestimate things when it comes to whites, be it the level of blame whites hold as a group, or just how much of a group whites actually are in some circumstances. I accept, however, that you believe I underestimate such things, and that you may be correct as often or more often than I am. I also understand that this particular forum is not the most conducive to reasonable, civil conversation.

As with politics, I think that posters on seemingly opposite sides often become entrenched with their positions. More, people start to see any sort of argument or opposition in terms of other arguments with other people. The generalization and stereotyping that leads to is, IMO, perhaps the biggest barrier to any sort of real racial harmony in the country. If people cannot see things in any light except 'us' and 'them', there will continue to be problems.

I try not to look at blacks (or any other race) as a group and assume all or most of them think the same way. As such, statements about how blacks or whites or any other race think a certain way, or act a certain way, or are more violent/criminal/etc. I don't tend to accept at face value.

This post is wandering far afield. Statistics are just statistics. It's how they are applied that really matters. Looking at crimes per capita without taking anything else into account will give a false picture. The same is true of only looking at the total numbers. In either case it is merely a bit of data to add to the whole picture.

/end ramble

 

[gallantwarrior]

[
Do you have any that shows that most murders DO NOT occur in black neighborhoods? I have proof that most do as evidenced by the fact that of the known cases 50 percent are black cases.

Can you tell me why you white people don't concern yourselves with the nonsense in your own community ?

It doesn't concern me because I never see crime personally. Crime isn't rampant in white neighborhoods. Most white people will never hear gun shots where they live.

Depends on where the white folks decide to live. My partner lives in a less-than-reputable part of Anchorage and gun shots are fairly common place, as are cops searching house-to-house. I will admit, the largest number of crimes are committed here by Pacific islanders, but blacks figure significantly, given the relative scarcity of blacks here.

 

[gallantwarrior]

so most of the murders are committed by rich blacks in white areas??!!!

Show me the data.

Table 43

Says here whites account for 69% of the total crime and lead in a vast amount of the categories in total numbers.

View attachment 204586

Whites are 70 percent of the population meanwhile it says blacks commit 28 percent and you are only 12 percent of the population.

black youth commit crime way out of proportion to their numbers

Dude, cut 'em some slack...everybody has to have a hobby!