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

Looks like they removed it.

So, Old and Cold - Since you got irate when I referenced it, perhaps you could explain your statements concerning 40's opinion about the war criminal who committed suicide, in comparison to the troll's repeatedly inaccurate characterization?

I will if you won't.

No where did I state that you knew how many Black people were in the military. Do you know what despite means?

he thinks that cuz I keep schooling his arse.

I didn't get irate, i just didn't see a sig line.

And I have no idea what you are talking about. Give me a post number please.

Jeez, the short-term memory.

Long ago, there was a post about a war criminal, Bosnia or therabouts, who was given a life sentence and took poison and killed himself. 40 made a LIMITED, CLEARLY DEFINED statement expressing some admiration for this act of defiance.

The troll has stated dozens of times that 40 expressed gushing admiration about the war criminal in general, including his heinous crimes, which is absolutely incorrect.

Your statement was something along the lines of saying you understood 40's context, and when I referenced your LIMITED, NARROWLY DEFINED agreement with this opinion, you went all batcrap crazy and demanded I never reference you again.

Got it?

Since you said it but did not like anyone mentioning it I am wondering what your actual opinion is or if it depends on who is watching at the time.

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

You do know what the quote marks indicate, right?

Are you saying that you are not now and never have been a teacher?

Yeah Swish, I do think Blacks are more violent than other groups. Do you watch the local news? Drive bys, rapes, murders. How do you explain what happened at Put-in-Bay? I work at the Prison in Mansfield from time to time and I'd guess over 50% is Black.

40 said that. PDF, or PDE, or PDR, or PED, (can't keep track of his user name) is the one that keeps bringing it up.

in·her·ent
inˈhirənt,inˈherənt/Submit
adjective
existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute.
"any form of mountaineering has its inherent dangers"
synonyms: intrinsic, innate, immanent, built-in, indwelling, inborn, ingrained, deep-rooted; More
LAW
vested in (someone) as a right or privilege.
"the president's inherent foreign affairs power"

________

so just to clarify, you believe we're born this way.

Yes

Who cares if he's a teacher or not? You flat out insinuated he was dumb. And for the record, he and I have had some issues in the past.

about time.

No kidding. Try and keep up.

I KNOW 40 said that. I KNOW the troll keeps bringing it up.

LONG AGO, OLDCOLD referenced 40's statement and gave an opinion on it. I referenced Oldcold's statement in another post, which started IIRC with me telling the troll that he was flat out lying, which he was, since his mouth was moving. He, Oldcold, went absolutely batcrap crazy and demanded I never reference him again.

So, I am asking Oldcold to define his position on the subject, because he clearly did not like the way I defined it.

Got it?

I have stated in the past that his statements have provided absolute crystal clarity on that particular issue. No question and no debate.

I called a spade, a spade.

Got it.

So, you lied about Ohio's Castle Doctrine law. Should I hold that against you forever?

You post football stuff in the pp forum, should I hold that against you forever?

Yes, I do. Could you find where I used them? I never stated that you knew the demographics of the military.

I'm your teacher

I vaguely remember the conversation, definitely the thread. Attacking you is no surprise, so let's just start from there...

I supported 40 in that and still do. I actually like 40 and know very well that half of what he says in here is strictly meant to stir the pot. He is hardcore republican and supports Trump but he doesn't worship Trump.

And I'm not sure I realized what you were talking about when I attacked you because I was generally irritated with many of your other posts at the time. And it's not that you get to me, I just don't like you personally because you act like you are smarter than you actually are.

I've already shown you that I'm pretty damn smart too, but neither you nor I need to prove that in every post just to belittle others in here. And yes, I'm well aware that I occasionally do it, even to you, but I don't need to do it like you seem to 'need it' to feel a certain way in here.

You and I could get along if you just toned down the talking over others and used your intellect to make decent contributions even when being argumentative. Then NOBODY would mind you occasionally breaking it off in someone's ass to prove your point.

I hope that addressed and cleared up all of your concerns, and please do accept my offer to address me at will.

I'm your huckleberry, remember?

I used them. The following was quoted from YOUR POST.

"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."

This bears no resemblance whatsoever to my statements.

If you think it does, reduce your dosage.

You just going to keep lying?

Yes, you repeated that earlier, do you not see that what you quoted, from my actual posts, does not equal the statement, from your post, that I quoted?

Said that black people - DESPITE MAKING UP LESS THAN 20% OF THE MILITARY - there is no basis for this statement. There are black people in the military. Since many poor people join, and many blacks are poor, it is reasonable to assume that whatever percentage of the population is black, the percentage of blacks in the military would be higher. A speculaton, not a fact, but one based on observable data. Note that the all caps portion, which you claim I said, is not accurate.

If the number is indeed higher in the military, that would mean that your state sponsored murders, your condition, not mine, would be biased toward black people committing the act, more so than their percent of the total, non military population would indicate. DISPROPORTIONATE.

I am honestly not sure what the heck you are even trying to say. Other than, you do not seem to understand what all the words mean, and as I stated, you have attributed to me words and concepts that I did not say.

Ummm... DAAAAAAMN that stings.

I did not claim you said that. You are claiming that I said that you said that. You are arguing with yourself.

One of your biggest problems in this racial debate is that your control group is your experimental group, black people (Although you have stated how it's really a man problem) in America. The world is much larger than this country with 300 million people. You're straining yourself to examine 30 million people and apply it to the billion+ people who are black. Are you sure that black people would be over represented in the military if you considered the demographics of the world?

What I was trying to say is that white people are inherently violent. The US alone has killed 20 million people since 52. That's more people than have been killed in America in the same time frame. Obviously the correlation means causation, that's what your whole argument relies on.

Post # 1480214

What sig line?

Hedging your position by saying "I don't think it is the cause" and then saying "it's possible it is the cause" has no scientific basis. Claiming this question has not been examined when eugenics was a popular avenue of "science" a century ago is downright laughable. Conversely, stating there is no link between race and predilection to violence is not an unfounded assertion. There is quite a bit of data to go along with that claim. The same can't be said for what you are saying. To expend further research into this concern is like continuing to play the lottery because 'you might win someday.' A small possibility does not increase the likelihood of being correct.

First, my sig line was deleted, cause it might have offended, well, idiots, I guess.

Now, you have two quoted statements, which you attribute to me, neither of which are anything like what I actually said.

Bringing up eugenics at all is laughable. Will you next cite tarot cards as evidence of something?

I do understand that most are afraid to undertake any actual examination of the question. That is OK for them. For me, there is NO question not worth examining, other than the obviously stupid. Like can you put ketchup on a bratwurst? Granma Grosklaus would rise up out of her grave and make me go get a stick so she could beat me with it.

You are telling me that all the stats and numbers do not indicate some thing to you? It is all just white privilege, made up racist crap?

Is it genetics, is it culture, is it both, is it neither? There are multiple data points that could support almost any conclusion, except the last one. What has been put forth here, is that to even ask the question of whether genetics could be involved, labels the asker automatically as a clan member.

Do you know the difference between a zebra and a horse?

clan
klan/Submit
noun
a group of close-knit and interrelated families (especially associated with families in the Scottish Highlands).
synonyms: group of families, sept; More
informal
a family, especially a large one.
"the Kennedy clan gathered for the celebration"
synonyms: group of families, sept; More
a group of people with a strong common interest.
"New York's garrulous clan of artists"
synonyms: group, set, circle, clique, coterie; More


you meant 'klan' member.

Klan
klan/Submit
noun
the Ku Klux Klan or a large organization within it.

next, ill teach the class the differences between there, their, and they're.

I should have never opened this thread.

I don't know if its in-her-ent or not. Google the pictures of Put-in-Bay if they haven't been taken down and then tell me why they act this way.

Who are "they?" A handful of black people? Most black people? All black people?

Assigning labels to entire groups of people is contrary to intelligence and tolerance.

But it works so well on the front page of Stormfront, that bastion of objective journalism...

Not assigning Black violence to all Blacks. I'm saying a larger % are violent compared to other groups.

Watch the local news. Rapes, murders Robery, Drivebys, assults , Police assults. Most committed by Blacks. I'm probably a Racist for pointing this out.

Were the British, French, and Spanish people non-violent when they came to this country and slaughtered entire groups of people?

Did not those same people carry out wars across the globe?

Every hear of "Gangs of New York?" Were the Irish peaceful while living in poverty?

Were the Italians peaceful when they were living in poverty-stricken neighborhoods?

Have the Germans ever been peaceful? Do you excuse the murdering of 6 million Jews?

Are you supportive of lynchings? Jim Crow laws? The deliberate refusal to follow the laws of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments by southern whites and theoretically continuing slavery through the straw-hut guise of "Sharecropping?"

When you used the word "they," you came across as someone who is lumping all blacks together. And the picture you painted was ugly and hateful.

I'll say this yet again. I really wish people of all races, ages, genders, religious affiliations, etc would stop assigning labels to entire groups of people and instead, treat individuals as individuals.

I think you missed my whole point.

Oh, I'm fairly certain most people "get" your point.

"Can the U.S. government stop the hate?"

The simple answer is no.

All the government can do is create rules/laws/regulations that usually only the law-abiding citizens follow while in a rational and emotion controlled state. I say that because even law-abiding citizens can fall prey to their emotions when in certain situations.

Stopping the hate has to start with the people. Me, you, the lady in line behind you at the store, etc.

It starts by simply being nice, and courteous. Ignore race, religion, nationality, fashion and just be nice. Hold the door for the person approaching, let the guy change lanes in front of you, smile towards people who you make eye contact with.

You don't have to converse with them, you don't have to go out of your way to be polite to them, and don't expect or become angered if they don't acknowledge your politeness.

Sometimes it is the simplest gesture that can sway someone's attitude or mood for the day, even if they don't immediately recognize it.

People don't want to be hateful or irritable, but life is stressful, and sometimes it gets the best of us. Someone showing politeness and compassion can really make a difference in that person's life.

We can stop the hate, but it is going to be one person at a time, and it starts with each of us.

My lack of excitement to take up this idea that "maybe certain races are genetically predisposed to more violence" is because research has thoroughly debunked the concept. You aren't arguing a new idea, this supposed science has existed back when the US was a collection of colonies. Genetic markers that make up someone who is black and someone who is white, is really quite mixed. It's very hard to gauge at a genetic level any culpable differences between a white person and black person beyond single gene mutations. The modern arguments for "human biodiversity" is that black africans evolved separately from early white men in the colder north. This isn't at all supported by genetics, however. A single gene mutation (melatonin production for instance) can easily propagate across a limited population. Mutating for higher intelligence requires hundreds or thousands of gene mutations for it to be a success. The amount of time evolution requires for something like that to happen would not fit the time split between early northern European men and early African men.

Your supposed flexibility in arguing any outcome to a situation can be expressed in a ludicrous example. Let's say a tree falls on your house. There was a bad windstorm the night before, so you may be inclined to think the wind knocked it over. What if I told you that it's possible that an elephant ran into the tree, knocking it over? Even if you went to the tree stump, and saw no evidence of elephant prints, it would be possible that someone came by later and removed all evidence that the elephant was there. By your argument, you cannot possibly say I'm wrong, because you couldn't prove it. You are arguing for the elephant.

I'm sure that six million Jews did.

The Police (and the Judges!) are not targeting blacks.

They’re targeting criminals.



Here’s another interesting fact.

Even though blacks only make up 13% of the U.S. population, Interracially they murder twice as many whites.



Do you think blacks are justified in murdering whites?

How about aggravated assault, robbery, rape?

Do you think we should ignore this?

Do you think these statistic from the F.B.I. are a lie?

Do you think a poster should repeat racist things on a daily basis?