DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Can the U.S. government stop the hate?

Shall we then also examine all of the tribal violence committed by natives in both Africa and North America, as well? How many dead Tutsi's and Hutu's in just recent history?

Do Turks and Armenians count as "white"? How about the Communist Chinese? Pol Pot?

How many centuries of near-constant warfare are you up to examine?

You stated it was clear, I believe that such thought comes from a very limited set of facts.

A more rational examination would, IMO, see that historical data paints with a broad brush, and in many colors, not just one. However, the current data available, in THIS country, in modern times, does indicate very specific trends and correlations.

Well those are examples of state sanctioned violence, so yes they would count. How historical do you want to take the violence? Your talking about recent things and tribal native American violence. I think a time table would help us out.

Also if it's a race thing, then why would you only be taking data from black US citizens?

You are the one who brought up history, set whatever timetable you wish. I think the falsehood of your contention has already been established, however.

Not sure if tribal violence would qualify as "state-sanctioned", might be an interesting discussion, the slaughter of the Armenians is an open question as to state approval, but really, why or how is "state-sanctioned" a relevant point? Other than to make the numbers more comparable and obfuscate the issues.

What data taken only from black US citizens are you referencing? I have performed no such action, the data I have seen, examined, and reference in my conclusions, concerns ALL US citizens.

Nelson, what you are advocating is a violation of onus probandi.

When someone says non-scientific phrases like "it must be the culture" to describe a problem, without any empirical evidence to back it up, it is well within the bounds of good science to say that argument is trash. ESPECIALLY when it is very easy to review actual data sets that suggest quite the opposite.

If someone wants to argue black culture is the problem, then we need to see some data. Until then, the data that we do have available points a big fat arrow at poverty and lack of education as big driving factors in crime, not genetics. In the absence of data, anyone who says the problem is black culture without any evidence is arguing on prejudice, not science.

Let's just do modern history. Right after WW2. That way we don't have to make any tough calls like "are jewish/armenian/turkish people white", because it kinda sheds light on how ridiculous this racial argument is. But if you have a problem with that we could go from the 1900's or the 1800's.

Also tribal violence is so cute. All the parties involved were sanctioned by the UN at one point in time.

"A more rational examination would, IMO, see that historical data paints with a broad brush, and in many colors, not just one. However, the current data available, in THIS country, in modern times, does indicate very specific trends and correlations."

Are you not advocating for just using US data in this talk about race?

"Also tribal violence is so cute. All the parties involved were sanctioned by the UN at one point in time."

You are going to have to explain that one.

As for the limits of the discussion area, YOU brought up
"white people", as in white people everywhere, throughout history, with no limitation. So, if you want limitations, then define them and stick with it.

I would go with civilian violence, in the modern era, in the US only.

In the 75 largest counties in the US, blacks made up 14% of the population while accounting for between 45% and 56% of the assaults, armed robberies, and shootings (or murders, I forget which). Lots of similar data, from lots of sources.

Comparisons of poor whites and poor blacks need to be carefully evaluated on each side for percentage of the population as a whole, and percentage of the particular group, as well. This is not usually done. There are more poor whites than poor blacks but their respective totals for percentages of their affiliated ethnic group are dramatically different.

Rwanda's government was sanctioned by the UN, ran by the Western world, but representative of the whole world. Asking if state sanctioned violence is state sanctioned because they're tribal is indicative that you don't want to have a real discussion.

So civilian violence in the US is your case point for a race's propensity to commit violence? Also is this data drawn from race of criminals who committed the crime or the race their main suspect was? What's the clearance rate for cases in these counties?

https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-has-kil...-war-ii/5492051

This website states that the US has killed more than 20 million people since WW2. The US has anywhere from 20,000-15,000 murders a year. Looks like the US military, primarily made up of white people have committed more murder than black people do in the US. I'm sure you're rolling your eyes at such a true statement, but it's only to show you that violent crimes correlate with economic conditions more than race or gender. I notice that you haven't noticed the gender disparity in violent crimes, but that's because it doesn't reinforce your stereotypes that black people are dumb.

Gage, your statement is incorrect. Check my sig line and apply it.

At no point did I state that genetics, or culture, IS the cause.

My statement was countering the contention that it is a provable fact that genetics (Specifically my reference, as previously posted by others, you inserted culture, which I have not referenced as of this time, in this discussion) are NOT the cause. There is no data given for this assertion. The question has not been examined, due solely to those who will scream to the hilltops that Racism!, Racism!, Racism! is the only possible reason to examine the question.

The unfounded assertion is RACIST. The only onus here is on the folks who made the original assertion.

As with a lot of other issues, I whole-heartedly blame the war on drugs as one of the root causes. A lot of murder can be traced back to the drug trade; competition, jealousy, distrust, disloyalty, these are just a few ways that someone can meet their end while involved in the trade.

While murder is not exclusively drug related, I think that bringing an end to drug prohibition would solve a lot of our problems.

People will still murder one another, but I think we would see a big shift in the demographics, as well as the motives...

i love how people are dancing around the issue, instead of asking nelson a direct question.

Nelson, do you think black people in america are inherently violent?

The actions of the Hutu and Tutsi were not, SFAIK, state sanctioned. YOU proposed examining ONLY state sanctioned actions, I asked if you wished to ignore other kinds. Any "indications" were inferred by you, not implied by me.

The data used the word "committed", not accused, so I will assume that they meant exactly what they said, and not something else, because that source usually does. The other requested information was not stated.

The link you gave does not mention true statements, only guesswork. Certainly the number is high, but as a leading world power, it could be expected to be much higher than that of, say, Lichtenstein. There were no economic factors mentioned. The US military does contain a significant number of black people, most likely a higher percentage than population distribution, such that deaths caused by US Military action would fall disproportionately upon black soldiers. That means you probably won't bring it up again.

I did not mention gender disparity in violent crime, as the percentage of women involved is extremely small, and also, it was not part of the discussion.

The ONLY PERSON who has stated that black people are dumb, is YOU. I have made no mention of the concept whatsoever.

Would you like to discuss the book The Bell Curve, instead?

Good thing you prove how little you know every time you post. The Rwanda government worked hand in hand with the Western world. Also you're now putting words in my mouth. At no point did I suggest we only look at state sanctioned violence. I suggested that we include it, not run by it.

Should we compare the US to say China or India? Pakistan even? At what point do we include other white countries like Germany, France and England?

The US military contains a significant amount of minorities, but still consist of a majority of white people. It is super telling that you think "most likely a higher percentage than population distribution, such that deaths caused by US Military action would fall disproportionately upon black soldiers." Maybe you think black people are inherently violent thus assert nonsense claims without any factual evidence.

Also, you and Haus have mentioned multiple times throughout this forum that you think black people are dumber than white people. You didn't have to mention it in this thread, for it to be brought up. But since you're mentioning Charles Murray, it does sound like you want to talk about how dumb black people are. Would you like to get on your soapbox now?

What do you think Swish? Do you think Black people are inherently violent?

Why do you keep replying to that boorish bore? I can't even finish one of his elitist, wind-bagging posts.

We're getting off track here.

We had a poster used statistics w/out a link to say that black people needed to be stopped by the government. He submitted a graph as evidence that had almost zero to do w/his claim.

He is racially profiling an entire group of people in a negative light. He has a history of racist posts.

I am going to defend and support y'all even though you turn your backs on me when I tried to get someone to agree w/me that assigning labels to entire groups of people was wrong in that little round-about I had w/PDX on the Generations thread.

It is disturbing how people only get offended when something occurs against their group while they ignore the same types of bias against groups they are not part of.

With that said, I won't lower myself to that level. What's wrong is wrong. And rocky was dead wrong to make the post he did.

I'll say it one more freaking time: Assigning broad, all-encompassing labels to entire groups of people is wrong. Judge individuals as individuals.

no, we've been over this already. i dont think anybody is inherently violent. and you?

What does the Rwandan government working with the Western world have to do with the Hutu-Tutsi violence not being state sanctioned? Your statements make no sense, as they frequently do.

I keep telling you to define your own conditions. You keep changing them.

Well, gosh golly gee, a significant number of poor folks join the military, and there are a lot of poor black folks. You know, those economic factors you keep trying to introduce, they are real and they are a factor, but numbers and proportionality are what we, or at least I, are working with here.

Find me quotes where I have made such statements. Or do you prefer to just fling excrement, like a zoo animal?

Higher numbers of high-school dropouts, yes. Lower scores on standardized IQ tests, yes. Lower scores on just about any academic measurement standard you want to look at, yes. A statement made by me, NO. An accusation by a shrilly screaming harpy who would not recognize an objective fact if it bit him on his gluteous maximus, absolutely.

Asians score higher than other groups on these same tests. Results are consistent over a wide range of time and test type. Which specifically do you disagree with?

There's a long-standing trend of racist imbeciles thinking that race science makes them sound like they're intelligent.

It is a hilarious genre.

This sounds like Stefan Molyneux.

Guys like Molyneux or Sam Harris or Charles Murray think using the word "rational" qualifies as being intellectual while every degree of actual rationality flies 20 feet over their heads.

You need to stop!!!

Aweek or so ago a group of 20 buses came down from Detroit to Put-in Bay They had several fights on the ferry going over. When they got there they trashed the island. Fights, garbage and trash everywhere. Cops from all over this area had to go over to get things calmed down. I know people that were over there when they hit town. They said it was a lot worse than reported in the papers. I can't explain acting like this, can you?

you didnt answer the question. Nelson didn't either.

So, you are saying that all black people are more prone to violent behavior than whites?

My qualm was with you stooging on about how Rwanda is filled with tribal violence and erasing their government into tribes. Instead of modern governments of today's world. You should read carefully. If you do, you can start taking on corporate lawyers instead of divorce lawyers.

I made my conditions and laid out some starting facts. You've dismissed them out of hand and then said that black people, despite making up less than %20 of the military, must have done those murders with no facts to prove it on.

Now you sit here like a conspiracy theorist explaining your rationale behind thinking black people are violent. Just because you can describe your rationale doesn't mean you're not insane.

Also, I'm not going to sit here and debate a book that has been debunked by everyone and their mother.

why is it so hard to get people to answer a yes or no question on if they think black people are inherently violent or not?

one would think thats a straightforward question, with a straightforward response.

Because they don't want anyone to call them racist.

Is English your primary language?

Rwanda had the highest incidence of tribal violence in the last 100 years, sfaik. No "stooging, just factual statements, you don't like those, do you? I made no statement about "erasing their government into tribes", simply that it was not state-sanctioned, a condition which you introduced but do not seem to understand.

I made no statements and cited no such numbers as you have contended. I could repeat my statement which bears no resemblance to what you said, but that would appear to be a waste of time and I do not communicate in Dick and Jane language.

I have stated no rationale and given no explanation as of yet. You are absolutely making stuff up out of your own very active imagination.

Good luck to you.

I don't know, maybe it is similar to how some people won't answer if they still believe the reasons they were given about why black women don't trust black men?

I am not at all afraid to answer your question, but you are definitely afraid to answer mine.

This is why you stay working against divorce lawyers. I didn't know Hooked On Phonics had a bar course.

you never asked if i still believed. you tried to use that event in a situation that had nothing to do with the topic at hand.

no, i dont believe it any longer. and i specifically stated where i got the info from.

so will you finally answer the question? or will you continue to act like politician and spin your way out of the BS mess you've clearly gotten yourself into?

oh and BTW, where are we ending the "tribalism" debate? ethnic identity? at the national level? race overall?

cause depending on how you're playing this, the last 100 years would be the Germans, as they killed how many jews, again?

the mongols? the persians? Turks? ottoman? where exactly are you going with this whole debate?

Show me where you get this - "said that black people despite making up less than %20 of the military must have done those murders with no facts to prove it on." - from your quoted sections or anything else I have posted.

Are you having a problem with 20%, again?

It is not there. That is not what I said. You are making it up.

I am amazed that somebody, somewhere, considered you qualified to educate our children.

Wait - CHS is a teacher? I didn't know that.

And I am amazed you even made this comment above - whether he's a teacher or not.

Don't waste your time. He never lasts more than a few days before he catches a ban. I'd lock horns with him and give him a proper education but the last time cost me a week.

I had a rebuttal to a post he made about me, but the refs removed his post, so it was lost.

I don't think he should be permitted to compare minorities to zoo animals who sling their own excrement. That is BEYOND racist. It's disgusting and this place should not accept such backward's thinking.

Vers #1480191

Swish, I asked you that question MULTIPLE times, you never answered it. I remember where you got it from, and IMO you should have some questions about spending more money at the same institution which hired that racist idiot.

There is not, and has never been, any tribal debate. CHS introduced the issue of state-sponsored violence, which, with the US as the major world military power, would be disproportionate and misleading. So I asked about Tutsi-Hutu violence, those two being tribes SFAIK, I do not know any other word to describe them, is there another one since you seem to object to that one?

We never even got the the American Indians, who were killing each other for 10,000 years before Europeans got here.

Then I referenced the Turkish-Armenian thing because there is a real question there as to whether it WAS, or WAS NOT, state sanctioned, as an example of how to define the terms. Some people have even made the claim that the Turkish Government had admitted to the genocide, making that statement withing days of major demonstrations by Armenians because Erdogan had failed to do just exactly that in a recent speech. Sound familiar?

If you follow my sig line, you might note that the 100 year number was specifically in reference to tribal, and not state sanctioned, and the Germans in WW2 would be a state sanctioned incident. So, no comparison. Sorry, try again.

I was attempting to get CHS to define a spectrum for the discussion, that lead nowhere. Ask him.

As for the question, what do the numbers tell you?

so let me get this straight...

you posted all that BS, and STILL couldnt answer the damn question?

you're doing all this talking, yet when its time to actually answer a straightforward question, you can't seem to do it.

lets try this one more time.

Nelson, do you think black people are inherently violent? yes or no?

The more open the racism, the more they'll tell-and-not-show how rational and englighted they are.

In their heads, they see themselves as Carlin-esque truth tellers.

What sig line?

I don't see your sig line. Did you change it/delete it after you were called on it?

If I remember, it was something like "read, Understand...."

he has no sig. not one that i saw, anyway. so i dunno what he's constantly referring to.

His sig line referred to people making themselves look like idiots. Someone must have reported it. LOL