NYPD statistics show 96 percent of shooting victims are black or Hispanic and that mi

Evidently..



And why did you feel compelled to use the word "negro"?

Compelled?
You exaggerate, I think.

Is there something wrong with it?

Well for one, I am black although for PC reasons I prefer to be called African-American since I identify with my African ancestry via my familial bloodline, and also I identify being American through my origin of birth hence, calling someone a "negro" which in the case of whites who are non-hispanic is neither PC nor the correct word usage to address someone. The word negro, in my opinion, is comparable to me calling a white person "pale face." For one, we don't live in the 1940's so to not disrespect people since we do live in modern times its better to be PC than not PC.
 
The fact that you use the word "negroes" is telling......

Oh by the way violent crimes do happen in impoverished areas. Statistics doesn't say "if you live in poverty you will commit crime" it says "if you live in poverty you're more likely to commit crime." If gang violence and drug use is prevalent in impoverished areas kids with little to no education, lack of resources are more likely to commit crime this includes violence.

Really?..it does? Tell me what it "reveals"..other than your attempt to dodge the facts.

This thread isn't about "kids" in "impoverished" areas and your theories, is it?
It's about violent crime and who are the most violent elements in our society and why.

First off, kids eventually grow up to be adults so discussing the issues that children face is indeed relevant to the understanding of developmental behavior. So in order to understand those social issues your talking about we need to see how kids are affected. You can't understand an adult social issue without looking into the past. This is simple scholarly thinking, past determining present. If blacks and hispanics are statistically higher on the scale of violence then we need to investigate what socioeconomic background do these individuals who commit crimes come from.

Questions most clinical/social psychologist would ask:

What is the parental system of the person? (Such as whether the individual resides in a single or two parent household)

What is the economic status?

Is or was the father present?

What is the living environment?

It was statistically shown that during these recession drug use had slightly increased so this fact leads to the understanding that socioeconomic status does play a part in whether someone is more prone to commence in illegal activity. If people who lose their jobs or homes and they drink more than the average person, what does that say about people who grow up in worse socioeconomic conditions? So all what I've said is quite relevant.
 
Well for one, I am black although for PC reasons I prefer to be called African-American since I identify with my African ancestry via my familial bloodline, and also I identify being American through my origin of birth hence, calling someone a "negro" which in the case of whites who are non-hispanic is neither PC nor the correct word usage to address someone. The word negro, in my opinion, is comparable to me calling a white person "pale face." For one, we don't live in the 1940's so to not disrespect people since we do live in modern times its better to be PC than not PC.

Well..good for you!
Some people are more interested in discussing the facts over playing "PC" semantics games.

"the 1940's"? Really?
Ever heard any "rap" "songs"? Have you happened to notice how often the "unmentionable N word" :eusa_shhh: is used by negroes to describe themselves and their race?

Want to discuss the fact that negroes commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime in the u.s. or are you going to continue to try to distract and deflect?
 
First off, kids eventually grow up to be adults so discussing the issues that children face is indeed relevant to the understanding of developmental behavior. So in order to understand those social issues your talking about we need to see how kids are affected. You can't understand an adult social issue without looking into the past. This is simple scholarly thinking, past determining present. If blacks and hispanics are statistically higher on the scale of violence then we need to investigate what socioeconomic background do these individuals who commit crimes come from.
I understand that negroes commit over half of all violent crime in the u.s.
The rest of that is doubletalk and excuse making.

aristotle said:
Questions most clinical/social psychologist would ask:

What is the parental system of the person? (Such as whether the individual resides in a single or two parent household)
Negro children are more often raised in single parent households by unmarried women.
We already know this. Why? What seem to prevent them from marrying and staying together and raising children properly?

ari said:
What is the economic status?
More white people are poor than negroes.

ari said:
Is or was the father present?
In black "families" the answer is usually "no"

ari said:
What is the living environment?
It varies.

ari said:
It was statistically shown that during these recession drug use had slightly increased so this fact leads to the understanding that socioeconomic status does play a part in whether someone is more prone to commence in illegal activity. If people who lose their jobs or homes and they drink more than the average person, what does that say about people who grow up in worse socioeconomic conditions? So all what I've said is quite relevant.

Compare and contrast say..the entire state of West Virginia ..one of the poorest regions of the country..also one of the whitest..yet negro crime FAR exceeds the rates in this area.
versus just the CITY of detroit? One of the blackest cities in america.
Your theory on that, "Dr."?
 
Well for one, I am black although for PC reasons I prefer to be called African-American since I identify with my African ancestry via my familial bloodline, and also I identify being American through my origin of birth hence, calling someone a "negro" which in the case of whites who are non-hispanic is neither PC nor the correct word usage to address someone. The word negro, in my opinion, is comparable to me calling a white person "pale face." For one, we don't live in the 1940's so to not disrespect people since we do live in modern times its better to be PC than not PC.

Well..good for you!
Some people are more interested in discussing the facts over playing "PC" semantics games.

"the 1940's"? Really?
Ever heard any "rap" "songs"? Have you happened to notice how often the "unmentionable N word" :eusa_shhh: is used by negroes to describe themselves and their race?

Want to discuss the fact that negroes commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime in the u.s. or are you going to continue to try to distract and deflect?

Well its obvious that our communication will be shortlived. First, you are comparing apples and oranges. Nobody, except old white baby boomers refer to blacks as "negroes." Second, I wasn't talking about rap songs and the references of using the "N word" is another discussion. Third there is nothing in my previous comments that showed deflection its rather, your attempt at not addressing my points and your failure to do so, compelling you to say that I am deflecting.

With respect to blacks committing the disproportionate of crime I believe I already addressed that. But since your incapable of actually reading let me repeat myself.

People of color such as the aforementioned two ethnic groups that commit disproportionate of crime, the issue must be looked at from a socioeconomic standpoint. So we must ask, why are these two ethnic groups statistically high when it comes to crime rate? I am talking about the social conditions that afflict people and compel them to commit crime. This is not by no means deflection, this is called investigative questioning. Failure to see the socioeconomic status of those that commit crimes is an attempt to try to demonize an entire ethnic group.

If you think this way let's put it like this. I'm black, with 3 degrees (two undergraduate and 1 post-graduate) now, if in fact statistics show that I am more prone to commit crime why am I not in jail? Why do I have $100k loan debt and not $100k from robbing someone? Well, maybe its because of my environment and the influences around me.
 
Quote: Originally Posted by Aristotle

First off, kids eventually grow up to be adults so discussing the issues that children face is indeed relevant to the understanding of developmental behavior. So in order to understand those social issues your talking about we need to see how kids are affected. You can't understand an adult social issue without looking into the past. This is simple scholarly thinking, past determining present. If blacks and hispanics are statistically higher on the scale of violence then we need to investigate what socioeconomic background do these individuals who commit crimes come from.

"I understand that negroes commit over half of all violent crime in the u.s.
The rest of that is doubletalk and excuse making."


So you fail to recognize social conditions as influences to developmental behavior?
Quote: Originally Posted by aristotle
Questions most clinical/social psychologist would ask:

What is the parental system of the person? (Such as whether the individual resides in a single or two parent household)

"Negro children are more often raised in single parent households by unmarried women.
We already know this. Why? What seem to prevent them from marrying and staying together and raising children properly?"


Staying married "properly?" The divorce rate is around 50% and blacks surely aren't the majority within those percentages, and if I were to guess whites divorce more than blacks since whites comprise the majority so, you tell me what is a proper way to stay married.....Next!

Quote: Originally Posted by ari
"What is the economic status?More white people are poor than negroes."

Sure, because there are more whites in the United States, Duh! your point?


Quote: Originally Posted by ari
Is or was the father present?In black "families" the answer is usually "no"


Quote: Originally Posted by ari
What is the living environment?

It varies.

Of course it varies...duh!

Quote: Originally Posted by ari
It was statistically shown that during these recession drug use had slightly increased so this fact leads to the understanding that socioeconomic status does play a part in whether someone is more prone to commence in illegal activity. If people who lose their jobs or homes and they drink more than the average person, what does that say about people who grow up in worse socioeconomic conditions? So all what I've said is quite relevant.Compare and contrast say..the entire state of West Virginia ..one of the poorest regions of the country..also one of the whitest..yet negro crime FAR exceeds the rates in this area.
versus just the CITY of detroit? One of the blackest cities in america.
Your theory on that, "Dr."?


A huge misnomer are folks assuming whites and blacks face the same social issues even if they are equally under the same socioeconomic conditions. However I don't know about the behavior in Virginia. That is Virginia. I live in California so I can only talk about the attitudes of people out here.
 
Well its obvious that our communication will be shortlived. First, you are comparing apples and oranges. Nobody, except old white baby boomers refer to blacks as "negroes." Second, I wasn't talking about rap songs and the references of using the "N word" is another discussion.
I'm sure it will be short lived. You don't have a leg to stand on.

ari said:
Third there is nothing in my previous comments that showed deflection its rather, your attempt at not addressing my points and your failure to do so, compelling you to say that I am deflecting.

With respect to blacks committing the disproportionate of crime I believe I already addressed that. But since your incapable of actually reading let me repeat myself.

People of color such as the aforementioned two ethnic groups that commit disproportionate of crime, the issue must be looked at from a socioeconomic standpoint. So we must ask, why are these two ethnic groups statistically high when it comes to crime rate? I am talking about the social conditions that afflict people and compel them to commit crime. This is not by no means deflection, this is called investigative questioning. Failure to see the socioeconomic status of those that commit crimes is an attempt to try to demonize an entire ethnic group.
..and I contend that poverty neither excuses nor causes crime. Lot's of poor people aren't criminals. Lot's of wealthier people are..So should we say that wealth causes crime, too?

The discussion is why negroes commit over 50% of all violent crime in the u.s. despite being only 14% of the population.


ari said:
If you think this way let's put it like this. I'm black, with 3 degrees (two undergraduate and 1 post-graduate) now, if in fact statistics show that I am more prone to commit crime why am I not in jail? Why do I have $100k loan debt and not $100k from robbing someone? Well, maybe its because of my environment and the influences around me.
We aren't talking a bout you and all your degrees :eusa_shhh: that you can't seem to help mentioning in every other post. I'm sure we're all highly impressed with your affirmative action admittance to college and your masters degree in "black studies" or some other black supremacist nonsense.

State your premise exactly for me and quit dodging.
Is your premise;
Only poor people commit crimes and therefore since negroes are poorer due to proven lower IQ, lack of parenting skills, lack of pride in community, lack of morals, failing out of school, smoking crack, multi generational welfare, abandoning their kids, contracting AIDS more often than any other race in america per capita, committing every crime imaginable at a staggering rate, underperforming on culturally unbiased tests of highly heritable cognitive abilities, and generally acting like a bunch of goddamn jungle savages is why they commit more crime?
Something like that?
 
Well..good for you!
Some people are more interested in discussing the facts over playing "PC" semantics games.

"the 1940's"? Really?
Ever heard any "rap" "songs"? Have you happened to notice how often the "unmentionable N word" :eusa_shhh: is used by negroes to describe themselves and their race?

Want to discuss the fact that negroes commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime in the u.s. or are you going to continue to try to distract and deflect?

Well its obvious that our communication will be shortlived. First, you are comparing apples and oranges. Nobody, except old white baby boomers refer to blacks as "negroes." Second, I wasn't talking about rap songs and the references of using the "N word" is another discussion. Third there is nothing in my previous comments that showed deflection its rather, your attempt at not addressing my points and your failure to do so, compelling you to say that I am deflecting.

With respect to blacks committing the disproportionate of crime I believe I already addressed that. But since your incapable of actually reading let me repeat myself.

People of color such as the aforementioned two ethnic groups that commit disproportionate of crime, the issue must be looked at from a socioeconomic standpoint. So we must ask, why are these two ethnic groups statistically high when it comes to crime rate? I am talking about [B]the social conditions that afflict people and compel them [/B[B]]to commit crime.[/B] This is not by no means deflection, this is called investigative questioning. Failure to see the socioeconomic status of those that commit crimes is an attempt to try to demonize an entire ethnic group.

If you think this way let's put it like this. I'm black, with 3 degrees (two undergraduate and 1 post-graduate) now, if in fact statistics show that I am more prone to commit crime why am I not in jail? Why do I have $100k loan debt and not $100k from robbing someone? Well, maybe its because of my environment and the influences around me.

low SES condition does not compel people to commit crime.

Low morals OTOH ?

correlation does not = causation
 
Last edited:
And why did you feel compelled to use the word "negro"?

Compelled?
You exaggerate, I think.

Is there something wrong with it?

Well for one, I am black although for PC reasons I prefer to be called African-American since I identify with my African ancestry via my familial bloodline, and also I identify being American through my origin of birth hence, calling someone a "negro" which in the case of whites who are non-hispanic is neither PC nor the correct word usage to address someone. The word negro, in my opinion, is comparable to me calling a white person "pale face." For one, we don't live in the 1940's so to not disrespect people since we do live in modern times its better to be PC than not PC.

Ever hear of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People?

or the United Negro College fund?
 
Ever heard any "rap" "songs"? Have you happened to notice how often the "unmentionable N word" :eusa_shhh: is used by negroes to describe themselves and their race?

Want to discuss the fact that negroes commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime in the u.s. or are you going to continue to try to distract and deflect?



Knowing that it is an outdated term that many people find offensive, what motivates you to insist on using that term? Don't whine about being misrepresented if you can't provide reason to reach any conclusion other than the obvious. If it is for the obvious reason, be man enough to be up front about it at least.
 
ari said:
What is the living environment?
It varies.

ari said:
It was statistically shown that during these recession drug use had slightly increased so this fact leads to the understanding that socioeconomic status does play a part in whether someone is more prone to commence in illegal activity. If people who lose their jobs or homes and they drink more than the average person, what does that say about people who grow up in worse socioeconomic conditions? So all what I've said is quite relevant.

Compare and contrast say..the entire state of West Virginia ..one of the poorest regions of the country..also one of the whitest..yet negro crime FAR exceeds the rates in this area.
versus just the CITY of detroit? One of the blackest cities in america.
Your theory on that, "Dr."?


Why did you feel the need to change his screen name in your reply?
 
We aren't talking a bout you and all your degrees :eusa_shhh: that you can't seem to help mentioning in every other post. I'm sure we're all highly impressed with your affirmative action admittance to college and your masters degree in "black studies" or some other black supremacist nonsense.


Ok, you ready to stop playing coy and drop all the pretense about your not being a fucking racist now?
 
since negroes are poorer due to proven lower IQ, lack of parenting skills, lack of pride in community, lack of morals, failing out of school, smoking crack, multi generational welfare, abandoning their kids, contracting AIDS more often than any other race in america per capita, committing every crime imaginable at a staggering rate, underperforming on culturally unbiased tests of highly heritable cognitive abilities, and generally acting like a bunch of goddamn jungle savages is why they commit more crime?
Something like that?



So, no more whining from you about your being a filthy fucking racist from now on, asshole.
 
Last edited:
1. The War on Drugs is a failure. .


No, it's not.

It has been successful I'm making criminals rich. The fact that prohibition does not work is recognized world wide.

"Drug enforcement keeps the price of illegal drugs at hundreds of times the simple cost of producing them. To destroy the criminal market, legalization would have to include a massive price cut, dramatically stimulating use and addiction. Legalization advocates typically ignore the science. Risk varies a bit, but all of us and a variety of other living things​—​monkeys, rats, and mice​—​can become addicted if exposed to addictive substances in sufficient concentrations, frequently enough, and over a sufficient amount of time. It is beyond question that more people using drugs, more frequently, will result in more addiction.

About a third of illegal drug users are thought to be addicted (or close enough to it to need treatment), and the actual number is probably higher. There are now at least 21 million drug users, and at least 7 million need treatment. How much could that rise? Well, there are now almost 60 million cigarette smokers and over 130 million who use alcohol each month. It is irrational to believe that legalization would not increase addiction by millions.

We can learn from experience. Legalization has been tried in various forms, and every nation that has tried it has reversed course sooner or later. America’s first cocaine epidemic occurred in the late 19th century, when there were no laws restricting the sale or use of the drug. That epidemic led to some of the first drug laws, and the epidemic subsided. Over a decade ago the Netherlands was the model for legalization. However, the Dutch have reversed course, as have Sweden and Britain (twice). The newest example for legalization advocates is Portugal, but as time passes the evidence there grows of rising crime, blood-borne disease, and drug usage.

The lessons of history are the lessons of the street. Sections of our cities have tolerated or accepted the sale and use of drugs. We can see for ourselves that life is not the same or better in these places, it is much worse. If they can, people move away and stay away. Every instance of legalization confirms that once you increase the number of drug users and the addicted, it is difficult to undo your mistake.

The most recent form of legalization​—​pretending smoked marijuana is medicine​—​is following precisely the pattern of past failure. The majority of the states and localities that have tried it are moving to correct their mistake, from California to Michigan. Unfortunately, Washington, D.C., is about to start down this path​s. It will end badly.

The second false argument for legalization is that drug laws have filled our prisons with low-level, non-violent offenders. The prison population has increased substantially over the past 30 years, but the population on probation is much larger and has grown almost as fast. The portion of the prison population associated with drug offenses has been declining, not growing. The number of diversion programs for substance abusers who commit crimes has grown to such an extent that the criminal justice system is now the single largest reason Americans enter drug treatment."



Legalized Drugs: Dumber Than You May Think | The Weekly Standard
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top