Conservative values/principles

[carpedm9587]

Interesting.

You have no idea...

That little disagreement - and how it played out - almost ended our marriage.

[seanD]

Actually - I noted that he would be a racist IF he were implying that violence is linked to skin color - which his statement leaves ambiguous.

And this is the problem with making comments about black people and violence. It is absolutely true that black people commit more violent crimes (percentage-wise) than white people. But that violence has nothing to do with their blackness: it has to do with their poverty. That has been clearly shown in study after study: violence and crime are linked to poverty, not to blackness. Repeatedly associating violence with "being black" continually reinforces the stereotype that "black people are more violent." THAT is part of the systemic racism/bias prevalent in our country.

If you think not - ask yourself why the need to single out the race of the person when referring to the crime if the race has nothing to do with the propensity for committing crimes? It is also statistically true that people with black hair commit more crimes than people with any other hair color, but we do not see people saying, "black-haired people commit more crimes than anyone else!" So why do we have a need to focus on skin color, which is just as irrelevant as hair color, when discussing violence and crime? Why are we not making the ACTUAL association: poverty.

The stats might imply that, but seer did not. Why blacks commit the majority of violent crimes (most likely it's cultural than race) was never brought up. He just showed you the stats. There was absolutely no reason for you to bring that up and imply seer was going in that direction. Typically white liberals resort to that type of race baiting because they're projecting their own racism. Blacks use it to shut down conservation. You likely brought it up as a deflection because you obviously can't refute the stats.

[JimL]

I mean they are just plain stupid and that makes them dangerous.

Trump supporters? Yes, very stupid, very dangerous.

[Cow Poke]

You have no idea...

That little disagreement - and how it played out - almost ended our marriage.

So sad to hear that. But glad you overcame.

(you did, yes?)

[Cow Poke]

Yeah... I'm aware. I can live with it.


And yours is MUCH funnier!

DRAT! I just tried to report you!

[Mountain Man]

Actually, carpe is pretty good about ignoring me for the remainder of a thread after he realizes he's lost an argument. I consider "Last word to you" to be his way of saying "I concede."

[JimL]

Seriously? You support and work with an organization without knowing or caring what its founders believe?



So let's take your Westboro Baptist Church example. Suppose the church ran a soup kitchen, and you learned that a Christian worked for and actively supported this ministry. You say, "How can you work there? Do you have any idea what the leaders of Westboro Baptist Church really believe?" and he responds, "I don't know, and I don't care. I'm just happy to serve homeless people." Would you really think that was an acceptable answer? I doubt it.

Yes.

[carpedm9587]

So sad to hear that. But glad you overcame.

(you did, yes?)

We did. I thought we had resolved the issue and we did not specify a preference. I found out after the adoption that my wife had made an end-run and had a personal chat with the agency to tell them of her preference. I was, shall we say, unpleased.

BTW, did you know that the fact that black children are harder to adopt causes most agencies to reduce the cost of the adoption. That little fact almost made me throw up. We got a discount on our children because they are black. I had to wonder - do they really want a couple to adopt a black child "because he was cheaper?"

There is a bit of humor here too. At the time, I had a credit card that offered those cash checks at 0% interest for the first year. I used one to pay the adoption bill. I made the mistake of using that example when talking to the boys about managing money. Since then, the boys have been fond of telling their friends that we used our charge card to buy them. They have your twisted sense of humor! Since they are both from Texas, I blame the state.

[carpedm9587]

The stats might imply that, but seer did not. Why blacks commit the majority of violent crimes (most likely it's cultural than race) was never brought up. He just showed you the stats. There was absolutely no reason for you to bring that up and imply seer was going in that direction. Typically white liberals resort to that type of race baiting because they're projecting their own racism. Blacks use it to shut down conservation. You likely brought it up as a deflection because you obviously can't refute the stats.

Actually - there is no evidence that it is cultural either. That is pure (racist) speculation on your part. The evidence is pretty solid: crime and violence is indexed to poverty. It has nothing to do with race, even when couched as "culture." Culture? Really? They live in the U.S. and most have lived in the same U.S. you and I have lived in for all of our lives.

[seanD]

9% of the caucasian population lives in poverty, which is 18.5M people. 22% of the black population lives in poverty, which is 8.8M people. (source)

So of all black and white people living in poverty, 67.8% are white and 32.2% are black.

The U.S department of justice says that white people committed 7.1M crimes and black people committed 2.8M. (https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/ucr.asp?table_in=2)

So of all black and white people who committed crimes, white people committed 71.7% of them and black people 28.3% of them.

See the alignment?



You want to prove a point and you link to someone's blog? And you link to a blog that doesn't even address the specific points I was making? Do you really think this is going to be convincing?

Here, Seer, take a look at the data straight from the horses mouth - the U.S. Sentencing Commission. And if you're going to refute it, try to use data that actually addresses the point being made?



Actually, your response made me go looking, and my inclusion of "violent" made my statement false. For violent crimes, we are nowhere near the top, even for western nations. I should have stayed with "lawless" as measured by the number of people we incarcerate. There we beat everyone else. The closest to us (but still behind) include such marvelous places as El Salvador, Turmenistan, Rwanda, and Cuba: good company for us to be in.

So, you are an American citizen - ergo you are more likely to be a lawless person than someone living in any other country.

You realize you're lumping nonviolent crimes with violent crimes here, correct? Yes, of course you do.

[carpedm9587]

DRAT! I just tried to report you!

[Cow Poke]

We did. I thought we had resolved the issue and we did not specify a preference. I found out after the adoption that my wife had made an end-run and had a personal chat with the agency to tell them of her preference. I was, shall we say, unpleased.

BTW, did you know that the fact that black children are harder to adopt causes most agencies to reduce the cost of the adoption. That little fact almost made me throw up. We got a discount on our children because they are black. I had to wonder - do they really want a couple to adopt a black child "because he was cheaper?"

Meh... I'd rejoice that I got 'a better deal', and not sweat the "why". More money to spend on raising them.

There is a bit of humor here too. At the time, I had a credit card that offered those cash checks at 0% interest for the first year. I used one to pay the adoption bill. I made the mistake of using that example when talking to the boys about managing money. Since then, the boys have been fond of telling their friends that we used our charge card to buy them. They have your twisted sense of humor! Since they are both from Texas, I blame the state.

At the risk of derailing this thread with friendliness between sworn enemies, how old were each of them when adopted? (sorry if you already covered that - I was busy hating you)

[carpedm9587]

You realize you're lumping nonviolent crimes with violent crimes here, correct? Yes, of course you do.

I believe I said that was the error in my first post - which is why I took it out in the second. The rest of the post does not conflate the two, AFAICT.

[seer]

9% of the caucasian population lives in poverty, which is 18.5M people. 22% of the black population lives in poverty, which is 8.8M people. (source)

So of all black and white people living in poverty, 67.8% are white and 32.2% are black.

The U.S department of justice says that white people committed 7.1M crimes and black people committed 2.8M. (https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/ucr.asp?table_in=2)

So of all black and white people who committed crimes, white people committed 71.7% of them and black people 28.3% of them.

See the alignment?

Carp I was speaking of violent crime. For instance murder, there you have 13% of the population that commits 51% of murders. Same with robbery. So if poverty IS the problem the whites should be the ones committing the greater portion of these crimes - actually the poor whites should be committing TWICE as many crimes given the 67/32 split so you can't blame poverty.

You want to prove a point and you link to someone's blog? And you link to a blog that doesn't even address the specific points I was making? Do you really think this is going to be convincing?

It is the a Wall Street Journal story with REFERENCES to the relative studies.

Here, Seer, take a look at the data straight from the horses mouth - the U.S. Sentencing Commission. And if you're going to refute it, try to use data that actually addresses the point being made?

From you link:Black male offenders continued to receive longer sentences than similarly situated White male offenders.

Yes they do, but what the studies do not control for are previous arrest records. As your link states, there is scant evidence. The other point is economic issues - are they comparing poor whites with poor blacks? Most poor people just don't have access to good lawyers. It just may be that whites have more economic advantage. Which is the case generally.

Actually, your response made me go looking, and my inclusion of "violent" made my statement false. For violent crimes, we are nowhere near the top, even for western nations. I should have stayed with "lawless" as measured by the number of people we incarcerate. There we beat everyone else. The closest to us (but still behind) include such marvelous places as El Salvador, Turmenistan, Rwanda, and Cuba: good company for us to be in.

So, you are an American citizen - ergo you are more likely to be a lawless person than someone living in any other country.

Excuse me, which western country has a higher murder rate than the US for example?

[seanD]

Actually - there is no evidence that it is cultural either. That is pure (racist) speculation on your part. The evidence is pretty solid: crime and violence is indexed to poverty. It has nothing to do with race, even when couched as "culture." Culture? Really? They live in the U.S. and most have lived in the same U.S. you and I have lived in for all of our lives.

Let me just inform you, lest you use the racism card again, I'm mixed race (black father). Now that that's out of the way. I've lived in the "ghetto" (downtown LA -- though it's fairly eclectic now) for quite a awhile, and I can tell you firsthand, it's cultural and it's self-inflicted within the black community itself. Poverty is just a lame excuse. As seer pointed out, other races, including whites struggle with poverty without the same results. Some of it, if not a lot of it, is also political, based on liberal polices, but that's a whole other can of worms.