Slain Baton Rouge Officer Wrote FACEBOOK Message Days Before His Death

[Tresha91203]

The officer wondered if the city loved him.

What is the percentage of the population that is black ?
Take that percentage and deduct it from 100%. The remaining would be the percentage that loved and appreciated your service.

Baton Rouge is 48% white, 45% black, 3% Asian and 2% mixed race. We don't identify hispanic as a race, so they are mostly classified as white, although a small percentage of hispanics identify as black so would be classified as black. I'd estimate about 10% there but that's a rough estimate just going by my visual comparison of how many latinos vs asians. 3 to 1 or a little more.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

It's his thread! He can hold any opinion or make any point he wishes. It's not imposing anything, it's the whole point of creating a thread.

You are the one trolling. If you don't like the content then simply leave.

1) Originating a thread doesn't mean a person owns it. The forum owns it.

2) It's understandable you will try to stick up for your friend and defend him even when he is wrong.

3) It's also understandable why you have a problem with me. After all, I've kicked your ass a few times for posting similar stupid stuff.

4) This forum is for posting opinions and discussion. I responded to ClosedCaption's OP with several comments including a link to the actual text (rather than a picture) and disagreement on his interpretation of Jackson's comments including my opinion that he was trolling with this comment:
"I think he means he hates cops or is a BLM sympathizer. Which means he's complicit in his own death or something like that"

Post 1 is the actual text dope.

 

[Divine Wind]

Post 1 is the actual text dope.

It's a picture of Jackson's text. You are simply in denial because, once again, I've have proven you to be a fool.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Post 1 is the actual text dope.

It's a picture of Jackson's text. You are simply in denial because, once again, I've have proven you to be a fool.

It's a screen cap of the actual FB post dope. You achieved nothing by reposting in a different format.

The only fool is you. You go on and on spamming the thread with shit that has nothing to do with the point made. I've seen you do this in a lot of threads. It's people like you with the constant spam that is making this board less appealing by the day.

 

[Skull Pilot]

This lady must be BLM and hate cops, too. Even though she's a retired police chief.

She doesn't look old enough to be retired maybe fired

 

[Katzndogz]

Breaking people into the categories of caucasoid, negroid, etc. Where does Tiger Woods fit into that? He's half Asian (Chinese and Thai), a quarter Black, 1/8 Native American and 1/8 White. Does the "one drop of blood" rule apply here? His own made up term of being a “Cablinasian”? Does it matter? IMO, it doesn't. He's just Tiger Woods.

Good question.

While I'm sure an anthropologist would put forth a broadly technical scientific explanation consisting of such details as cranial dimensions, etc., the ordinary individual would cite Woods' most prominent racial characteristic, which is his pigmentation and facial features, which are (to me) distinctly negroid.

The Uncertainty Principle means that a particle's position can be known, but not it's speed and vice versa. It's related to the Observer Effect where merely observing something changes it. In this case, merely bringing up racial problems exacerbates them. If we want to get rid of racism, then we need to stop being racist (dividing people into racial groups) in our conduct as a society.

Thank you.

I understand the point you're making but I believe the reason you're making it is rather ambitious. What I mean is how would you propose to eliminate the naturally occurring recognition by any sentient individual of certain plainly obvious differences and similarities in the physical and behavioral characteristics of humans by other humans?

Actually, I believe the word, race, is in itself a redundancy because all humans are members of the human "race." I prefer a more exacting designation, such as human species and its various sub-species, the individual designations being no more or less significant in the example of humans than the specific designations in any other animal species, such as dogs or cats.

A dog is a dog, so what is the the difference between a German Shepherd and a Golden Retriever? The answer, and its validity, depends on whom you ask.

Example; quotas. Requiring that a business, government entity or other group have a set percentage of personnel equal to the population distribution. I.E. 50% men/women, 77% white, 13% black, etc. It's racist to do this and, depending on the job, not reasonable. Maybe 50% of men don't want to be nannies or interior decorators so it would be wrong to force a business to be 50% men simply because 50% of the population are men.

Thank you.

All dogs belong to the canine species. Golden Retrievers and German Shepherds are breeds. You could as easily say that whites, blacks and asians are separate breeds. That would be correct.

 

[Divine Wind]

All dogs belong to the canine species. Golden Retrievers and German Shepherds are breeds. You could as easily say that whites, blacks and asians are separate breeds. That would be correct.

That would be incorrect for the reasons pointed out in the links below. In short, different skin color doesn't define a "breed".

Why is it controversial to say human races have different average personalities due to genetics, while differences between dog breeds are accepted and frequently cited? - Quora

Why are there not breeds of humans like breeds of dogs? - Quora

Human races vs. dog breeds (Page 1) - Evolution - Ask a Biologist Q&A
I think a really important point to grasp is that "race" in a human context is not a biologically well defined concept. It may/may not be better defined in sociology but I am not sure. The wiki page has quite a good overview
Human genetic variation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (see section on categorisation of the world population section).

Humans harbour plenty of genetic variation and this is - to some extent - structured both spatially and by self-identified ethnic group. So you can, for instance show there are genetic differences between sub-saharan African populations, and European ones. However, you could also show genetic differences between Norwegians and Germans - does that make them different races? Furthermore 1) the structuring is imperfect, 2) it does not correspond to people's simple preconceptions (of e.g. black people, white people), 3) genetic variation among groups (however defined) is low relative to variation within groups; and, 4) to the extent that "races" exist in humans, matings have always occurred between groups (promoting genetic homogeneity).

Contrast this with dog breeds for which we have selectively bred traits under artifical selection while actively preventing inter-breed matings (or rather cross-bred offspring are not considered breeds). Could we do this in humans? As a thought experiment (i.e. leaving aside the ethics) - yes, and I am sure that we could select for more intelligent and less intelligent human breeds (or ones with floppy ears etc ). However, this has not been done in humans while it has in dogs. Hence the concepts of dog breeds and human races are not really comparable.

To answer 3 and 4, given that there are some genetic differences among e.g. geographically defined human groups despite extensive admixture, there is no reason in principle why these could not be present at genes influencing cognitive performance (provided selection for "intelligence" is not too strong). However, in the absence of any scientific evidence (and recognising that defining and measuring intelligence in a way that is not culturally biased is itself problematic), assertions that some races are more/less intelligent than others, should (in my view) be seen as plain old ugly pedjudice.

 

[Divine Wind]

....It's people like you with the constant spam that is making this board less appealing by the day.

Then put me on ignore or leave the forum.....or you can just keep lying and whining. Your choice.

 

[MikeK]

All dogs belong to the canine species. Golden Retrievers and German Shepherds are breeds. You could as easily say that whites, blacks and asians are separate breeds. That would be correct.

You're right. That would be a much too narrow and easily dismissed analogy. So let's substitute the canine sub-species of dogs, wolves, coyotes and foxes.

 

[MikeK]

That would be incorrect for the reasons pointed out in the links below. In short, different skin color doesn't define a "breed".

Indeed it doesn't: