Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Link.

Despite only making up less than 13% of the population, blacks are the most frequent homicide offenders.

Now, where's that guy who used to say that whites were genetically predisposed to racism?

its the rap. >\

I predict a bright future for this thread.

Seriously though, those statistics are shit. Just look at how many are of "unknown" race (shouldn't that be what the "other" category is for?), with those numbers that could mean anything. It's a complete joke.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I predict a bright future for this thread.

Seriously though, those statistics are shit. Just look at how many are of "unknown" race (shouldn't that be what the "other" category is for?), with those numbers that could mean anything. It's a complete joke.

Unknown race is listed when the perpetrator is unknown.

Where have you been, Zeal? lulz



K. So, yeah. We established that Black people commit more crime, per captia. There was some sort of meta-analysis done that drew correlations to brain size and testosterone to violent acts/crimes committed. Apparently, Asians have bigger brains and less testosterone, but they commit less crime. Sub-Saharan Africans and their descendants have the smallest brain, the most testosterone, but commit the most crime. Whites fall in between there but somewhere closer to Asians.



What does this mean? Hitler and co. had it wrong.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I predict a bright future for this thread.

Seriously though, those statistics are shit. Just look at how many are of "unknown" race (shouldn't that be what the "other" category is for?), with those numbers that could mean anything. It's a complete joke. Well other races and unknown race is of course different, but I wouldn't deny the stats all credibility because of that large unknown.

Do children with 1 black & 1 white parent get counted as "black" in studies like this? Or as "other?" Or do you have to visually look at the child, i.e. Tiger Woods' kid? Actually, Woods is only like 1/4 black yet he's counted as black. Confusing!

Originally posted by botankus
Do children with 1 black & 1 white parent get counted as "black" in studies like this? Or as "other?" Or do you have to visually look at the child, i.e. Tiger Woods' kid? Actually, Woods is only like 1/4 black yet he's counted as black. Confusing!

Just One Drop.


This statistic has been around for at least a decade. It seems to be based on just absolute numbers rather than looking at income levels or place of residence.

So small brain= Bigger penis?

Is there a new policy on Stormfront saying you have to be banned from KMC before you're allowed membership? The last couple of months with these kinds of threads...

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Is there a new policy on Stormfront saying you have to be banned from KMC before you're allowed membership? The last couple of months with these kinds of threads... You think this thread is racist?

Originally posted by Bardock42
You think this thread is racist?

I think it's at least bating.

Besides, if you look at the scope of crime (i.e. how many people are negatively impacted), the worst criminals would be white, protestant males.

LOL @ the source.

First, there's no such thing as race in the biological world.

Second, unknown? What are we talking about? Goblins? Trolls? Orcs?

I'm a leprechaun. am I unknown, other, or irish?

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Link.

Despite only making up less than 13% of the population, blacks are the most frequent homicide offenders.

Now, where's that guy who used to say that whites were genetically predisposed to racism?

white police are racists, blacks are just victims.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well other races and unknown race is of course different, but I wouldn't deny the stats all credibility because of that large unknown.
For all we know, all the "unknown" crimes could have been whites, in which case it would be whites who had the most crimes... the huge error margin left by that large of an "unknown" category is simply unacceptable if this is to be taken seriously.

Originally posted by Dr. Leg Kick
First, there's no such thing as race in the biological world.
Genetic differences that primarily express themselves as visible phenotypes compose what we know as race.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Genetic differences that primarily express themselves as visible phenotypes compose what we know as race. There is a greater chance of one individual from a so called race to have more genetic similarity with someone out of their so called race.

its not another races fault if another race does more crime than others. they just use that as an excuse to try their best not to make themselves look as bad.

Originally posted by Dr. Leg Kick
There is a greater chance of one individual from a so called race to have more genetic similarity with someone out of their so called race.
I'm afraid not. There's a reason that blacks are more prone to sickle cell anemia than whites.

Originally posted by King Kandy
For all we know, all the "unknown" crimes could have been whites, in which case it would be whites who had the most crimes... the huge error margin left by that large of an "unknown" category is simply unacceptable if this is to be taken seriously.

Even if it was all whites. Blacks would still account for 33% of the crimes.

But what are they supposed to say when the race is actually unknown? I mean it's definitely not other, is it? Should they just not publish their stats?

In the defense of the black race defendants, maybe criminals in ski masks and people with darkish faces on blurry video cameras (which could very well be "other) are being lumped into the "black" category.

Originally posted by Dr. Leg Kick


First, there's no such thing as race in the biological world.



That is absolutely the lamest most untrue statement I've ever read

Originally posted by botankus
In the defense of the black race defendants, maybe criminals in ski masks and people with darkish faces on blurry video cameras (which could very well be "other) are being lumped into the "black" category.

I'm guessing the stats are from people who have been convicted of crimes and the "unknown" are from reported but unsolved cases.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I'm afraid not. There's a reason that blacks are more prone to sickle cell anemia than whites. If we're discussing diseases, then that's just a small part of genetics, and factors involving the environment. Japanese known for strokes, Armenian and Greeks for Mediterananea fever etc...

There are research journals/articles that have long ended this debate.

Haven't read these, but should be similar to the journal we used in lab.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=does-race-exist

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=31&art_id=vn20021217112750970C124344&set_id=1

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/human-genome-project-announces-race-does-not-exist

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
That is absolutely the lamest most untrue statement I've ever read Bioltechnology major. Relax buddy. You're just mad cuz I'm arrogant and drive a porsche. We talked about this before. Relax.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Even if it was all whites. Blacks would still account for 33% of the crimes.

But what are they supposed to say when the race is actually unknown? I mean it's definitely not other, is it? Should they just not publish their stats?
Yeah, if they have such a large "unknown" category as to render the thing statistically meaningless, then they shouldn't publish it.

Statistics are misleading because they don't count the severity or scope of crimes or discount non-violent drug offenses. If you wanted a more realistic statistics of supposed crimes by race, take total crime statistics, discount all crimes that are not crimes of moral turpitude, then discount everyone convicted of marital infidelity and/or sodomy and you'll have a much clearer and more meaningful picture if you're the kind of person who looks at societal harm through a racial lens.

For those who don't know, Crimes of moral turpitude (with the exception of adultery and sodomy) are those crimes which are most serious, negatively affect the most amount of people, and demonstrate a clear intent to harm people, property, and/or the state.

Maybe we could just discount every crime for which at least one person doesn't feel is wrong, and then we'd have a crime-free society, and then all races would be equal in the crime standings. YAY!

Originally posted by botankus
Maybe we could just discount every crime for which at least one person doesn't feel is wrong, and then we'd have a crime-free society, and then all races would be equal in the crime standings. YAY!

All crimes are not equal.

You don't see the difference between smoking pot and robbing a liquor store? You don't see the difference between DUI and running a Ponzi Scheme?

People are different and think different things when they hear of the crime.

But to answer your question, it depends. Someone smoking pot behind the wheel of a car could very well be perceived as more dangerous than a guy sticking his thumb in his hoodie pocket and saying, "Yo Liquor Store dude, I'm taking this 6-pack of beer!"

Sorry, I guess I just think that Hugh Grant (the CEO, not the actor), Steven Hemsley, Tim Geithner, and Joe Leiberman are more dangerous to my well being than Willie Horton or John Allan Mohammed.

I see your point, and this is a little off-topic, but I think no one really knows the biggest threat to their future at present moment, like the guy who carjacks you at a stoplight, or the waiter who steals your credit card info, or the kid who bullies your child on the playground and sends him/her to the hospital.

I think theres more than black and white people, and those two skin colours are not a "RACE" humans are a race. Black is merely a skin colour, there are many CULTURES and CIVLISATIONS that contain people of that specific skin colour as are the same with Whites.

Ridiculous, typical racist government idiots.

Originally posted by botankus
I see your point, and this is a little off-topic, but I think no one really knows the biggest threat to their future at present moment, like the guy who carjacks you at a stoplight, or the waiter who steals your credit card info, or the kid who bullies your child on the playground and sends him/her to the hospital.

And that is what defines crimes of moral turpitude

Crimes defined as such-

* Making false representation
* Knowledge of such false representation by the perpetrator
* Reliance on the false representation by the person defrauded
* An intent to defraud
* The actual act of committing fraud
* Arson
* Blackmail
* Burglary
* Embezzlement
* Extortion
* False pretenses
* Forgery
* Fraud
* Larceny (grand or petty)
* Malicious destruction of property
* Receiving stolen goods (with guilty knowledge)
* Robbery
* Theft (when it involves the intention of permanent taking)
* Transporting stolen property (with guilty knowledge)
* Bribery
* Counterfeiting
* Fraud against revenue or other government functions
* Mail fraud
* Perjury
* Harboring a fugitive from justice (with guilty knowledge)
* Tax evasion (willful)
* Abandonment of a minor child (if willful and resulting in the destitution of the child)
* Assault (this crime is broken down into several categories, which involve moral turpitude):
o Assault with intent to kill, commit rape, commit robbery or commit serious bodily harm
o Assault with a dangerous or deadly weapon
* Bigamy
* Contributing to the delinquency of a minor
* Gross indecency
* Incest (if the result of an improper sexual relationship)
* Kidnapping
* Lewdness
* Manslaughter:
o Voluntary
o Involuntary (where the statute requires proof of recklessness, which is defined as the awareness and conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustified risk which constitutes a gross deviation from the standard that a reasonable person would observe in the situation. A conviction for the statutory offense of vehicular homicide or other involuntary manslaughter only requires a showing of negligence will not involve moral turpitude even if it appears the defendant in fact acted recklessly)
* Mayhem
* Murder
* Pandering
* Prostitution
* Rape (including "Statutory rape" by virtue of the victim's age)
* An attempt to commit a crime deemed to involve moral turpitude
* Aiding and abetting in the commission of a crime deemed to involve moral turpitude
* Being an accessory (before or after the fact) in the commission of a crime deemed to involve moral turpitude
* Taking part in a conspiracy (or attempting to take part in a conspiracy) to commit a crime involving moral turpitude where the attempted crime would not itself constitute moral turpitude.

Not crimes of moral turpitude-

* Damaging private property (where intent to damage not required)
* Breaking and entering (requiring no specific or implicit intent to commit a crime involving moral turpitude)
* Passing bad checks (where intent to defraud not required)
* Possessing stolen property (if guilty knowledge is not essential)
* Joy riding (where the intention to take permanently not required)
* Juvenile delinquency
* Trespassing
* Black market violations
* Breach of the peace
* Carrying a concealed weapon
* Desertion from the Armed Forces
* Disorderly conduct
* Drunk or reckless driving
* Driving while license suspended or revoked
* Drunkenness
* Escape from prison
* Failure to report for military induction
* False statements (not amounting to perjury or involving fraud)
* Firearm violations
* Gambling violations
* Immigration violations
* Liquor violations
* Loan sharking
* Lottery violations
* Minor traffic violations
* Possessing burglar tools (without intent to commit burglary)
* Smuggling and customs violations (where intent to commit fraud is absent)
* Tax evasion (without intent to defraud)
* Vagrancy
* Assault (simple) (i.e., any assault, which does not require an evil intent or depraved motive, although it may involve the use of a weapon, which is neither dangerous nor deadly)
* Creating or maintaining a nuisance (where knowledge that premises were used for prostitution is not necessary)
* Incest (when a result of a marital status prohibited by law)
* Involuntary manslaughter (when killing is not the result of recklessness)
* Libel
* Mailing an obscene letter
* Mann Act violations (where coercion is not present)
* Riot
* Suicide (attempted)

Originally posted by Liberator
on the right track but it isn't skin colour that has you commit crimes, it's you, yourself. Yeah, Poverty = Crime, Emma Goldman proved that as did many others.


But these things can't be taken from a stand point like this. The human RACE commits crimes because thats what we do, theres immoral cruel bastards out there, (aka the FBI), who make it their mission to do stupid shit like this.

Again, which is why racially based statistics are more or less useless, but if someone is determined to use them why separating crimes into two categories as said would make more sense. I'm sure if the statistics were based on moral turpitude and not all crimes, crime statistics based on race would be pretty even.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Sorry, I guess I just think that Hugh Grant (the CEO, not the actor), Steven Hemsley, Tim Geithner, and Joe Leiberman are more dangerous to my well being than Willie Horton or John Allan Mohammed.


So, you measure how "bad" it is based on how many people they impact?



Those loss of billions of dollars by hundreds (or thousands) of people is certainly impacting lots of people. I just don't think any amount of money is equal to a productful human life.

Originally posted by dadudemon
So, you measure how "bad" it is based on how many people they impact?



Those loss of billions of dollars by hundreds (or thousands) of people is certainly impacting lots of people. I just don't think any amount of money is equal to a productful human life.

figure in the social impact-divorces, debt, crime, suicide, institutionalization. apply the domino affect and you find that it ruins or ends many, many productive human lives. not just one. You really get the moral equivelant of serial murder.

i think the statistics are photoshopped cause mexicans do everything. >

Originally posted by Darth Jello
figure in the social impact-divorces, debt, crime, suicide, institutionalization. apply the domino affect and you find that it ruins or ends many, many productive human lives. not just one. You really get the moral equivelant of serial murder.

How many people comittied suicide over the Bernard Madoff problem?

Originally posted by dadudemon
How many people comittied suicide over the Bernard Madoff problem?

I don't think anyone knows yet or will for a long while. Millions of people lost their life savings. Think about it.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Yeah, if they have such a large "unknown" category as to render the thing statistically meaningless, then they shouldn't publish it. It's just their stats. That's the information they got. Why in the world would they not state them? And like I said it is hardly meaningless. It seems to me you are knee jerking into dismissing this because you fear racist undertones. I don't think that was the intention though. Granted it can be misused as that, ignorantly imo, but that doesn't mean that those statistics shouldn't be made publicly available.

I agree with Darth Jello about the severity of the crimes being an interesting points, and I also agree with whoever said it about the cause of them being a factor. But those are all things that are possible to be discussed. Those stats are a starting off point, perhaps not even the best, but a decent enough one, now they can be debated. Outright dismissing everything though and basically trying to kill any conversation on the subject seems silly.

Though no one seems to have mentioned that these stats are about homicides only. Not crime in general.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
I don't think anyone knows yet or will for a long while. Millions of people lost their life savings. Think about it.

MILLIONS?

Are you sure?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Though no one seems to have mentioned that these stats are about homicides only. Not crime in general.
I sort of did. That's why my first post was citing that other study on violence/crime. I didn't see this as anything BUT homocide.

Those statistics, or that trend has been around for years - what this chart is not showing is the social class of offenders, ie those who live in poverty are more likely to be a victim or a perpetrator.

One in three black people live in poverty, so that can/does correspond.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Though no one seems to have mentioned that these stats are about homicides only. Not crime in general.

Murder is only a point of view.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Murder is only a point of view.

No, that's actually well defined by law. (Which were based on point of views.)

You may be referring to the intentions behind "homicide" being debatable.

The FBI is retarded.

WTF is the "Unknown" race?
There's a race we haven't heard before? Must be the Reptilians.

Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
The FBI is retarded.

WTF is the "Unknown" race?
There's a race we haven't heard before? Must be the Reptilians.

Unknown race is when the race of the criminal is not known. They have to include that in order to get the number of crimes committed correct.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Unknown race is when the race of the criminal is not known. They have to include that in order to get the number of crimes committed correct.

If that's the case, then they'd have to incorporate an estimate of unreported or unfound homicides, too.

Years ago there were like five or so guys on death row, the governor of the state exonerated them. All black guys.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Those statistics, or that trend has been around for years - what this chart is not showing is the social class of offenders, ie those who live in poverty are more likely to be a victim or a perpetrator.

One in three black people live in poverty, so that can/does correspond.

Again, Moral Turpitude. It separates crimes of desparation, passion, and stupidity from crimes of intended malice.

i dont know why blacks whine about getting accused of crime more when they can get a job easier than whites

every major corporation or business is required to hire so many blacks and latinos. so if your white and you go to a group job interview and theres some blacks or latinos there as well 7 out of 10 they will get the position before you. especially if the gender is female

Originally posted by chomperx9
i dont know why blacks whine about getting accused of crime more when they can get a job easier than whites

every major corporation or business is required to hire so many blacks and latinos. so if your white and you go to a group job interview and theres some blacks or latinos there as well 7 out of 10 they will get the position before you. especially if the gender is female

Wow, calling you an ignorant racist would be predictable.

I'll just lay the less obvious truth on you. You fell for Richard Nixon's scheme.

Originally posted by chomperx9
i dont know why blacks whine about getting accused of crime more when they can get a job easier than whites

False.


A job application expirement was done. It rather thoroughly proved that "white" sounding names got twice as many callbacks as "black" sounding names, when applying for jobs. (Resumes were equal, of course.)


http://umpbump.com/press/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/nbc_the_more_you_know.jpg

Originally posted by chomperx9
every major corporation or business is required to hire so many blacks and latinos. so if your white and you go to a group job interview and theres some blacks or latinos there as well 7 out of 10 they will get the position before you. especially if the gender is female

No. That's only if they comply with Affirmative Action initiatives. Did you know that some states made AA illegal? Did you know that some African Americans, including Cheif Justice Clarence Thomas, oppose AA?

You're confusing the motives and philosphies of AA with equal opportunity employment.

http://umpbump.com/press/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/nbc_the_more_you_know.jpg

or, in other words...


http://weblog.signonsandiego.com/weblogs/afb/archives/VicePresidentRichardNixon.jpg
YOU GOT DICKED!!!!!

Originally posted by dadudemon
False.


A job application expirement was done. It rather thoroughly proved that "white" sounding names got twice as many callbacks as "black" sounding names, when applying for jobs. (Resumes were equal, of course.)

It is actually considerably worse than that

studies show that interviewers are more engaged, polite and friendly with white over black applicants during an interview, including scenarios where the interviewer was also black. That these biases would remain when the interviewer knows they are being assessed (though not for racial bias, deception would have been used in the study) is further telling of the obstacles faced by black people when searching for employment.

http://umpbump.com/press/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/nbc_the_more_you_know.jpg

Originally posted by inimalist
It is actually considerably worse than that

studies show that interviewers are more engaged, polite and friendly with white over black applicants during an interview, including scenarios where the interviewer was also black. That these biases would remain when the interviewer knows they are being assessed (though not for racial bias, deception would have been used in the study) is further telling of the obstacles faced by black people when searching for employment.

http://umpbump.com/press/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/nbc_the_more_you_know.jpg

Are we referring to the same study? Did they do that in the same study, as well? I only recall the portion about the job applications themselves. That would be one massive study if they also undertook the actual interview portion, too.


And, how did they figure out the cold versus warm demeanor? Wouldn't that be slightly subjective? (To a point.) Did they record the interviewer?


And where is the study? I've looked and could not find.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Are we referring to the same study? Did they do that in the same study, as well? I only recall the portion about the job applications themselves. That would be one massive study if they also undertook the actual interview portion, too.

Several studies, likely dating back over 20 years. Research that consists of a single study is useless in the overall scheme of things

Originally posted by dadudemon
And, how did they figure out the cold versus warm demeanor? Wouldn't that be slightly subjective? (To a point.)

inter-rater reliability. multiple researchers would judge the content of the interview and they would have to have very similar definitions of the qualities in question (normally assessed in a pilot study). Not as objective as an fMRI, but its not nearly as subjective as one might think. Also, it isn't a single study, and the data together do suggest the same thing (ie: its not just one crazy study or research team).

Originally posted by dadudemon
Did they record the interviewer?

yes

Originally posted by dadudemon
And where is the study? I've looked and could not find.

I learned it as part of a social psych course, so it was mainly in the textbook and I hadn't looked for the studies since.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Wow, calling you an ignorant racist would be predictable.

I'll just lay the less obvious truth on you. You fell for Richard Nixon's scheme. truth comments doesnt make one a racist. the thread starter should be considered one. and yes other races can get a job easier than whites in the states

Originally posted by chomperx9
truth comments doesnt make one a racist. the thread starter should be considered one. and yes other races can get a job easier than whites in the states

you've tried to get a job as someone who isn't white?

you've actually been turned down for a job you were more qualified for because of your race?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Murder is only a point of view.

Woah....that's deep, man.


btw, while we are at people that get the short end of the stick:

http://www.feministing.com/archives/019320.html

http://www.copyblogger.com/james-chartrand-underpants/



That said, I am somewhat against affirmative action, but to deny the problem it is based on is silly and if not racist at least severely misinformed.

Originally posted by Liberator
on the right track but it isn't skin colour that has you commit crimes, it's you, yourself. Yeah, Poverty = Crime, Emma Goldman proved that as did many others.


But these things can't be taken from a stand point like this. The human RACE commits crimes because thats what we do, theres immoral cruel bastards out there, (aka the FBI), who make it their mission to do stupid shit like this.

Laws are probably contrary to our nature, so why not just bin them and go for "the survival of the fittest".

Originally posted by inimalist
you've tried to get a job as someone who isn't white?

you've actually been turned down for a job you were more qualified for because of your race? every time ive gone to a job interview where its a group and there is blacks there or females they get the position before me. i have a good resume no criminal records. usually i will get the position if its just a one on one interview.

and answer this for me if you think my comment about hiring blacks and other races before whites is wrong.

if you go to walmart target bestbuy macys any retail store why do you always see a black female behind the register ?

not being racist just cause im asking a question not putting anyone down just posting of what ive heard from others.

Originally posted by chomperx9
if you go to walmart target bestbuy macys any retail store why do you always see a black female behind the register ?
*waits for punch line*

Originally posted by chomperx9
every time ive gone to a job interview where its a group and there is blacks there or females they get the position before me. i have a good resume no criminal records. usually i will get the position if its just a one on one interview.

and answer this for me if you think my comment about hiring blacks and other races before whites is wrong.

if you go to walmart target bestbuy macys any retail store why do you always see a black female behind the register ?

not being racist just cause im asking a question not putting anyone down just posting of what ive heard from others.

Have you thought of not using words like "ZOG" or "Pure White" or "Mongrelized" or "Aryan" at job interviews?

Now that that's out of the way, why don't you get an appointment at your optometrist and ask for the Farnsworth test. I used to have trouble getting jobs even before the economy collapsed until 2004 when I was diagnosed as color blind and realized that no one took me seriously because I had trouble matching my socks and knowing when ties clash or when my suit didn't match.

And please take the last part I said seriously. I assume that you're male. If you're male, I have a 1 in 50 chance of being right.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Have you thought of not using words like "ZOG" or "Pure White" or "Mongrelized" or "Aryan" at job interviews?

Now that that's out of the way, why don't you get an appointment at your optometrist and ask for the Farnsworth test. I used to have trouble getting jobs even before the economy collapsed until 2004 when I was diagnosed as color blind and realized that no one took me seriously because I had trouble matching my socks and knowing when ties clash or when my suit didn't match.

And please take the last part I said seriously. I assume that you're male. If you're male, I have a 1 in 50 chance of being right. answer this how come on applications it will ask if your african american caucasian asian latino or any other race ?

and i dont use words like white or zog at job interviews.

Because those are optional census related questions. You don't have to answer those. You may want to read the fine print.

Originally posted by chomperx9
every time ive gone to a job interview where its a group and there is blacks there or females they get the position before me. i have a good resume no criminal records. usually i will get the position if its just a one on one interview.

you know for a fact that they were not better suited for the job than you were?

You know, for a fact, that the employer would have hired you but was forced to hire someone of a minority race?

Because this seems more like post-hoc rationalization of your own failures through the scapegoating of others. "I failed because of them, not because of me".

Originally posted by chomperx9
and answer this for me if you think my comment about hiring blacks and other races before whites is wrong.

I think it is incorrect

Originally posted by chomperx9
if you go to walmart target bestbuy macys any retail store why do you always see a black female behind the register ?

confirmation bias?

even then, do you suppose that every black female with that position is less suited for the job than a white person and was chosen, against the employers desire to hire white people, by force of law?

Originally posted by chomperx9
not being racist just cause im asking a question not putting anyone down just posting of what ive heard from others.

what you have heard is incorrect. It is likely people are attempting to gain your support for white racial movements by trying to make you feel that you are being victimized by society. This couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, being white, you really do have nobody other than yourself to blame for your failures, because every study ever done into this has shown you have the advantage over other racial groups, even when you are being judged by members of that group.

theres really no point in explaining you wont understand. topics like these always lead to fights and no one understands one another.

PS your in canada in the states hiring goes a little different now these days so its equal towards others but sometimes its not always equal

Originally posted by chomperx9
theres really no point in explaining you wont understand.

clearly it is I who is unfamiliar with the actual data and statistics surrounding the hiring practices of companies with regard to race

way to dismiss that which challenges your beliefs

Title fail......they are all Human as a race.

Originally posted by inimalist
clearly it is I who is unfamiliar with the actual data and statistics surrounding the hiring practices of companies with regard to race

way to dismiss that which challenges your beliefs i who, that which, yeah no offense but theres no way you would get it.

Originally posted by chomperx9
i who, that which, yeah no offense but theres no way you would get it.

totally man, I'm slow like that

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
That is absolutely the lamest most untrue statement I've ever read No response yet? Is that a may-wahh?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Again, Moral Turpitude. It separates crimes of desparation, passion, and stupidity from crimes of intended malice.

Completely irrelevant. Crime statistics list crimes not 'excuses' for crimes.

USA does not have crime of passion at all (France does), but temporary insanity, therefore collecting figures on that is pointless (not to mention impossible).

'Intended malice' is another bogus category that does not exist in criminology nor criminal justice.
People who commit crimes ''on purpose'' are categorized into murder, vandalism, kidnapping, rape..etc.
Same goes for ''stupidity'' crimes. (whatever the hell that is).

In criminology and criminal justice the reason for the highest number of crimes has been identified as poverty, social and class divide.
Others include, biological factors, psychological factors and peer pressure. (some accepted, some rejected by mainstream criminology)

If you have issues with accepted facts, I suggest you write to US government statistics office, or The American Society of Criminology.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Completely irrelevant. Crime statistics list crimes not 'excuses' for crimes.

USA does not have crime of passion at all (France does), but temporary insanity, therefore collecting figures on that is pointless (not to mention impossible).

'Intended malice' is another bogus category that does not exist in criminology nor criminal justice.
People who commit crimes ''on purpose'' are categorized into murder, vandalism, kidnapping, rape..etc.
Same goes for ''stupidity'' crimes. (whatever the hell that is).

In criminology and criminal justice the reason for the highest number of crimes has been identified as poverty, social and class divide.
Others include, biological factors, psychological factors and peer pressure. (some accepted, some rejected by mainstream criminology)

If you have issues with accepted facts, I suggest you write to US government statistics office, or The American Society of Criminology.

He's saying that those categories are ones that should be mentioned, probably because they can be seen as differentiating types of criminals.

Originally posted by inimalist
Several studies, likely dating back over 20 years. Research that consists of a single study is useless in the overall scheme of things



inter-rater reliability. multiple researchers would judge the content of the interview and they would have to have very similar definitions of the qualities in question (normally assessed in a pilot study). Not as objective as an fMRI, but its not nearly as subjective as one might think. Also, it isn't a single study, and the data together do suggest the same thing (ie: its not just one crazy study or research team).



yes



I learned it as part of a social psych course, so it was mainly in the textbook and I hadn't looked for the studies since.


Cool. Thanks for the info. I DID learn something.

If no one mentioned it, one's environment plays a very large role. If you're born and raised in a ghetto-type area, you're likely to commit more crimes, skin color aside.

Originally posted by chomperx9
theres really no point in explaining you wont understand.

I don't get it. It was already proven in sound studies that you are definitely wrong with your statement.

Further compounding that is the asymmetric unemployment rates among the different races with African Americans experiencing the most unemployment. (During this current financial depression.) It is definitely not all "blacks are lazy." There's waaaaay too many unemployed (relative to white population) to be all part of an African American subculture: especially when you look at similar social strata across the races. (Meaning, there's "rich" black families with great educational backgrounds withOUT jobs, more often, than than white people in the same class.)

There are even organizations on the East Coast that help black people tidy up their application so their race is ambiguous because it really is so hard to get a job as a black person, compared to being white.

Originally posted by chomperx9
topics like these always lead to fights and no one understands one another.

Only because it's blatantly obvious that you're an ignorant racist.

Originally posted by chomperx9
PS your in canada in the states hiring goes a little different now these days so its equal towards others but sometimes its not always equal

This is a strawman argument and does nothing at all to address anything he's stated.

Originally posted by dadudemon



Only because it's blatantly obvious that you're an ignorant racist.



hahaha what i posted had nothing to do with involving putting down another ones race i posted information of equal rights on how blacks and females can get jobs easier than most others. i guess that makes me a sexist to for posting true information lol.

you gotta problem with it talk to the government. your just one of those immature teens that wants to make someone look bad for no reason when the topic involves another ones race and try to make it into a fight. thats the problem with lots of people today either they are completely stupid or they just love fights.

for example you see more chineese employees at a chineese restaurant usually. ok so that makes me a racist now towards chinnese people for speakign the truth ? not putting them down in any way just making a true statement giving you an example between insults and true statements

Originally posted by chomperx9
hahaha what i posted had nothing to do with involving putting down another ones race i posted information of equal rights on how blacks and females can get jobs easier than most others. i guess that makes me a sexist to for posting true information lol.

you gotta problem with it talk to the government. your just one of those immature teens that wants to make someone look bad for no reason when the topic involves another ones race and try to make it into a fight. thats the problem with lots of people today either they are completely stupid or they just love fights.

for example you see more chineese employees at a chineese restaurant usually. ok so that makes me a racist now towards chinnese people for speakign the truth ? not putting them down in any way just making a true statement giving you an example between insults and true statements

Except that as several people have mentioned all of your "facts" are wrong.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Except that as several people have mentioned all of your "facts" are wrong. you can google it and see that i am not wrong

Originally posted by chomperx9
hahaha what i posted had nothing to do with involving putting down another ones race i posted information of equal rights on how blacks and females can get jobs easier than most others. i guess that makes me a sexist to for posting true information lol.

Nice try. But, no. It was an ignorant racist statement. You can't dress it up to be pretty or pass it off as academic. It simply wasn't true.




Originally posted by chomperx9
you gotta problem with it talk to the government. your just one of those immature teens that wants to make someone look bad for no reason when the topic involves another ones race and try to make it into a fight. thats the problem with lots of people today either they are completely stupid or they just love fights.

I'm 26, and have 5.5 years of college education under my belt. I'm also married and have 2 children.

And, no, to all of that. I just don't particularly care for ignorance being passed off as fact. Nevermind that it was racist ignorance.

Edit - In fact, you can check my posting history and find sevearl examples of the above statement about facts.

Originally posted by chomperx9
for example you see more chineese employees at a chineese restaurant usually. ok so that makes me a racist now towards chinnese people for speakign the truth ?

Depends, really. Is it a family owned business? I know of a chinese restaurant that is run by a white guy and he employs almost 100% Latin American Immigrants.

You'd be safer in addressing particular establishments to avoid racism.

But, you're point is a strawman. It in no way addresses what was being discussed.


Originally posted by chomperx9
you can google it and see that i am not wrong


No. You can google it and post an academic, peer reviewed, finding to prove that what you said is true.

If I googled it, I'd end up at some psuedo-scientific racist website done by people just as ignorantly racist as you, most likely.

There might be a point in that people who own an establishment that puts on a particular "ethnic air" might hire people who conform to a racial group, but this would also be the opposite of affirmative action. If chomper is arguing that employers should be able to hire whoever they want, he would actually be in favor of Chinese restaurants only hiring Chinese staff.

Further, his point about female checkout staff may also have some truth, but it is almost certainly the choice of the employer to put young female staff at the checkout rather than anything related to affirmative action. People like to interact with young girls over young men, old men or old women. Similarly, the presence of black tellers at these places could also be seen as a deliberate choice by the employer to offer services to people who feel they would be better served by a black employee.

The two cent version is this: The proofs chomper is using to show the "racism" of affirmative action are almost certainly related to the choices of the employer rather than to any affirmative action laws. This means, in the ideal world chomper is arguing for, there would be no difference in how people are hired in the particular instances he used.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Nice try. But, no. It was an ignorant racist statement. You can't dress it up to be pretty or pass it off as academic. It simply wasn't true.


YOUR JUST ONE OF THOSE THAT WANTS TO MAKE IT AND HEAR IT AS AN IGNORANT RACIST COMMENT. YOUR JUST ONE OF THOSE THAT HEARS ANY DEFENSE TOWARDS THE WHITES THAT MAKES THE OTHER PERSON RACIST. PUTTING DOWN ANOTHER RACE OR NOT GIVING ANOTHER RACE A CHANCE OR NOT TREAT THEM EQUALLY THAT IS A RACIST. AND MY POST ON EQUAL RIGHTS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING RACIST.




I'm 26, and have 5.5 years of college education under my belt. I'm also married and have 2 children.

And, no, to all of that. I just don't particularly care for ignorance being passed off as fact. Nevermind that it was racist ignorance.

Edit - In fact, you can check my posting history and find sevearl examples of the above statement about facts.


BOTHERS ME THAT AT 26 YOU WANT TO MAKE EVERYTHING TURN INTO RACISM BECAUSE THATS HOW YOU LOOK AT THINGS WHEN SOMEONE EXPLAINS SOMETHING.

IF I SAID THIS WHITES AND MALES CAN GET A JOB EASIER THAN BLACKS BECAUSE COMAPNIES ARE REQUIRED TO HIRE SO MANY WHITES AND MALES. DOES THAT MAKE ME A RACIST TOWARDS WHITES ?



Depends, really. Is it a family owned business? I know of a chinese restaurant that is run by a white guy and he employs almost 100% Latin American Immigrants.

You'd be safer in addressing particular establishments to avoid racism.


IT DOESNT INVOLVE RACISM UNLESS YOU CHOOSE TO HEAR IT AS A RACISM. ONCE AGAIN SPEAKING THE TRUTH OF HOW SOMETHING GOES ON THE WORLD HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING RACIST.
But, you're point is a strawman. It in no way addresses what was being discussed.





No. You can google it and post an academic, peer reviewed, finding to prove that what you said is true.

I BET IF I JUST POST THE LINK YOUR JUST GONNA SAY TO ME IM A BIGGER RACIST OR SOMETHING. I KNOW YOUR KIND NOW

If I googled it, I'd end up at some psuedo-scientific racist website done by people just as ignorantly racist as you, most likely

I HOPE FOR YOUR CHILDRENS SAKE THEY GET A BETTER EDUCATION AND ARE NOT SO SENSITIVE AND UNDERSTAND THE DIFERENCE BETWEEN INSULTS AND TRUE FACTS.


.

Originally posted by chomperx9


But you didn't speak the truth. You spit out some false incorrect racist ideas that have been heard much more than once from...get this...racists.

Also, "you know my kind", huh?

Why don't you read the thread from the beginning.


Again, all your other points are strawman arguments and don't actually address what is being discussed.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But you didn't speak the truth. You spit out some false incorrect racist ideas that have been heard much more than once from...get this...racists.

Also, "you know my kind", huh?

Why don't you read the thread from the beginning.


Again, all your other points are strawman arguments and don't actually address what is being discussed. to you its false because you havent heard this information before. just becaus you arent aware of something does not make it false. and ok yeah we got off topic a little like this is the 1st time thats happened on a forum come on now.

and calling the governemt racists for equal rights really doesnt sound right if you think about it. they made an agreement on this years back dont know how long now but its for everyone no matter the race or gender to have equal job opportunities which sounds fair dont you think ? why should that be racist ?

Originally posted by chomperx9
to you its false because you havent heard this information before. Why don't you read the thread from the begginning.

I do believe I've indicated I have "heard" this stuff before. Reread my posts and tell me when you find it. Then comment on that.

Originally posted by chomperx9
just becaus you arent aware of something does not make it false. and ok yeah we got off topic a little like this is the 1st time thats happened on a forum come on now.

See my above point. And, I wasn't referring to being off-topic to the opening post, I was referring to your attempts to change the subject from what you had originally posted to what I responded with.

Originally posted by chomperx9
and calling the governemt racists for equal rights really doesnt sound right if you think about it. they made an agreement on this years back dont know how long now but its for everyone no matter the race or gender to have equal job opportunities which sounds fair dont you think ? why should that be racist ?

When I did you or I call the government racist? I'm confused.


And, the US government has a nice long history of racism and race discrimination. Even gender discrimination. (We still have some gender discrimination in affect...and possibly some race based discrimination in the form of laws at both the state and federal level.)

Originally posted by dadudemon



When I did you or I call the government racist? I'm confused.


by saying my comments were racist on information that came from the government. and how was i changing the subject ?

and if you heard this information before why are you accusing me of racism when you have heard it from others. someone posting information on what someone else has heard does not make that one racist.

Originally posted by chomperx9
by saying my comments were racist on information that came from the government. and how was i changing the subject ?

Ah. Okay. So, an unsubstantiated claim of yours, that was racist and incorrect, btw.

And, the very nature of strawman is to change the subject, but not actually counter the point presented.



Originally posted by chomperx9
and if you heard this information before why are you accusing me of racism when you have heard it from others. someone posting information on what someone else has heard does not make that one racist.

I guess you didn't go back and reread my posts. You wouldn't be asking that question, had you done that. Go back and reread my posts to you, from today. Once you find it, get back to me. I'll be available until midnight, CST.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Ah. Okay. So, an unsubstantiated claim of yours, that was racist and incorrect, btw.

And, the very nature of strawman is to change the subject, but not actually counter the point presented.





I guess you didn't go back and reread my posts. You wouldn't be asking that question, had you done that. Go back and reread my posts to you, from today. Once you find it, get back to me. I'll be available until midnight, CST. youll be available till midnight on here arguing with people who you dont give a damn about when you can be spending time with your kids. and i read your previous posts you still dont understand where im getting at.

and to you maybe the claim might be incorrect but it does not make one a racist


my buddy just bought a used black volvo. he was complaining about all the scratches it had on it compared to the other cars in the lot. i explained to him that black vehicles you can see scratches and dents more than white vehicles. does that make me a racist there ?

It's clinically proven that due to actually mating with the cockroach, modern white people can survive a nuclear explosion, whereas other races will perish.

Japanese might as well, but that's just because.

You Mexicans and blacks are doomed.

Originally posted by One Free Man
It's clinically proven that due to actually mating with the cockroach, modern white people can survive a nuclear explosion, whereas other races will perish.

Japanese might as well, but that's just because.

You Mexicans and blacks are doomed.

I vote for the Chinese. If whole world gets destroyed today, they'll rebuild it tomorrow and invent hover cars by midday. By 5pm they would colonize Mars. Who knows where the Chinese will be by Monday afternoon...

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I vote for the Chinese. If whole world gets destroyed today, they'll rebuild it tomorrow and invent hover cars by midday. By 5pm they would colonize Mars. Who knows where the Chinese will be by Monday afternoon... nah, I think you're thinking of the japanese. by Monday afternoon the chinese will have made enough crap, involving child labor and overpopulation, to outsource every American manufacturing job and then it will fail when they invade, inferior to the slightly superior product they kept for themselves.

Japanese are the more innovative type. I mean, they invented electricity! dur

edit: of course, I'm one of those people who likes to satire racism more than I care about it.

Originally posted by chomperx9
youll be available till midnight on here arguing with people who you dont give a damn about when you can be spending time with your kids. and i read your previous posts you still dont understand where im getting at.



No, it's cause I'm work, working till midnight, on the weekend before Christmas. Can you guess how many of my users are working at this time?

But, nice try to attack my character instead of actually addressing the point. You do know that that was another strawman attempt, don't you? (It was also an ad hominem fallacy, as well.)


Originally posted by chomperx9
and to you maybe the claim might be incorrect but it does not make one a racist

So, you go from saying it's true, to saying it came from a credible source, to saying it was from the government finding, to saying that it might be incorrect, but not necessarily racist.

Now, don't worry about thinking that I have a personal vendetta against you. I don't. I am only addressing your incorrect comment that points to ignorant racism. The lesson you should take from this is verifying your findings before you spew ignorant racism. (Instead of trying to argue for pages.)

Check this out: One time, my coworker told me that our cell phone numbers would be given out to advertisers and that we had to sign up for a "do not call list" to avoid it. It was a hoax, I was wrong. Robtard proved it with a snopes article. Instead of arguing and justyfying my post on multiple pages (like you're trying to do now), I moved on. It's okay to be wrong about a fact. There's not reason to drag things on. There's also no reason to try to make personal attacks against the person who pointed out the wrongness in your post. In fact, my original post was intended more as humor with the smartass "the more you know" images. You took it way too seriously. lol

Originally posted by The Nuul
Title fail......they are all Human as a race.
Derp.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Just One Drop.


This statistic has been around for at least a decade. It seems to be based on just absolute numbers rather than looking at income levels or place of residence.

Very true. Other variables exist.

Interesting link:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/wealth/1998_2000/wlth00-1.html

It is a bit dated though. It's from 2000

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Link.

Despite only making up less than 13% of the population, blacks are the most frequent homicide offenders.

Now, where's that guy who used to say that whites were genetically predisposed to racism?

When it comes down to it race can not really be completely determined... for instance, I had a professor who, from just looking at him was a black guy. However, he showed us a genetic profile of his that he had done that went back 400 years, and he had more Caucasian than African American in him, so what is he? Is he a white guy with dark skin or a black guy with mostly Caucasian genes?

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, it's cause I'm work, working till midnight, on the weekend before Christmas. Can you guess how many of my users are working at this time?

But, nice try to attack my character instead of actually addressing the point. You do know that that was another strawman attempt, don't you? (It was also an ad hominem fallacy, as well.)




So, you go from saying it's true, to saying it came from a credible source, to saying it was from the government finding, to saying that it might be incorrect, but not necessarily racist.

Now, don't worry about thinking that I have a personal vendetta against you. I don't. I am only addressing your incorrect comment that points to ignorant racism. The lesson you should take from this is verifying your findings before you spew ignorant racism. (Instead of trying to argue for pages.)

Check this out: One time, my coworker told me that our cell phone numbers would be given out to advertisers and that we had to sign up for a "do not call list" to avoid it. It was a hoax, I was wrong. Robtard proved it with a snopes article. Instead of arguing and justyfying my post on multiple pages (like you're trying to do now), I moved on. It's okay to be wrong about a fact. There's not reason to drag things on. There's also no reason to try to make personal attacks against the person who pointed out the wrongness in your post. In fact, my original post was intended more as humor with the smartass "the more you know" images. You took it way too seriously. lol yes it is ok for people to be wrong about facts. no one is perfect. maybe im wrong your right maybe im right and your wrong. but posting facts about whats happening in the world does not make one a racist. the facts might sound racist but that doesnt make the poster one. i am not the government.

it bothers me that at 26 you dont know the difference between insults and facts. and then calling someone ignorant racist. those are strong words thats why i took it serious when i was just trying to make a point.

Originally posted by chomperx9
yes it is ok for people to be wrong about facts. no one is perfect. maybe im wrong your right maybe im right and your wrong.

This isn't about me being right it wrong. You made an false statement. I mentioned a study that made your statement false. (mutiple studies, as inimalist (a real research psychologist), pointed out). That's it.

Originally posted by chomperx9
but posting facts about whats happening in the world does not make one a racist. the facts might sound racist but that doesnt make the poster one. i am not the government.

That doesn't make what you posted NOT ignorant racism, though. You pretended a study existed for it to not sound racist. That's not really cool, is it?

Originally posted by chomperx9
it bothers me that at 26 you dont know the difference between insults and facts. and then calling someone ignorant racist. those are strong words thats why i took it serious when i was just trying to make a point.

Your statement was ignorant racism. You can chose to be insulted by that. But it's not an insult.

If I make an ignorant racist post, even if unknowingly, I fully expect someone to call that statement for what it is: ignorant racism. Once I'm educated, I will not longer make that same ignorant racist statement ever again.


I can't believe you're still trying to make personal attacks. Just post, "I heard my pa say it, so I thought it was true. My bad." Then we can move on.

Originally posted by Mandrag Ganon
When it comes down to it race can not really be completely determined... for instance, I had a professor who, from just looking at him was a black guy. However, he showed us a genetic profile of his that he had done that went back 400 years, and he had more Caucasian than African American in him, so what is he? Is he a white guy with dark skin or a black guy with mostly Caucasian genes?

Depends on the environment/setting.

If he has a "black" sounding name, he's black to most people looking at his job application.

If he gets angry in a department store, he's an angry black man.

If police are called to his house (never mind that he owns the house), he's black on the evening news.

If he makes an important finding or establishes an appealing foundation, he's Professor Such and Such.

If he writes a book that isn't about race, it's written by Prof. such and such. If it relates to race, even a little, it's a book written by Black Prof. Such and Such.

If he has a drug problem, it's "that black guy" on drugs.




I hope no one says racism is almost dead in America. It's not. Far from it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This isn't about me being right it wrong. You made an false statement. I mentioned a study that made your statement false. (mutiple studies, as inimalist (a real research psychologist), pointed out). That's it.





That doesn't make what you posted NOT ignorant racism, though. You pretended a study existed for it to not sound racist. That's not really cool, is it?
the only way it can be racism as if its racist towards the white race since i posted blacks can get job opportunities easier than whites. your problem is you want it to be racist


Your statement was ignorant racism. You can chose to be insulted by that. But it's not an insult.

a statement on facts thats happening in the world does not make one a racist. your just one of those that just hears the word black and BAM that person is now considered a racist.

If I make an ignorant racist post, even if unknowingly, I fully expect someone to call that statement for what it is: ignorant racism. Once I'm educated, I will not longer make that same ignorant racist statement ever again.

theres like 2 or 3 posts already ive seen on this thread from others since we started this arguement. scroll back you will see that hey are attacks.


I can't believe you're still trying to make personal attacks. Just post, "I heard my pa say it, so I thought it was true. My bad." Then we can move on. me make personal attacks ? calling someone ignorant racist on facts is a peronal attack. and reason i believe this is because i have heard it from more than one person. i have even heard it from managers before at diferent retailers. and judging by the high volume of black females i have seen behind registers i believe it.

Ugh. That's a mess. (I just pasted your quote tage repeatedly to separate your post from mine. lulz. It was still too messy.)

I don't feel like reading your posts anymore. Contribute to the topic. If you want to use a study to justify a racist remark, cite it. (Make sure it's credible and peer reviewed.)

Originally posted by dadudemon
Ugh. That's a mess. (I just pasted your quote tage repeatedly to separate your post from mine. lulz. It was still too messy.)

I don't feel like reading your posts anymore. Contribue to the topic. If you want to use a study to justify a racist remark, cite it. (Make sure it's credible and peer reviewed.) my bad i dont know how to quote more than one post. how do i do that exactly so it doesnt look like crap ?

Originally posted by chomperx9
my bad i dont know how to quote more than one post. how do i do that exactly so it doesnt look like crap ?


Quote one of my multi-quote posts. It will show you how I'm doing it. (I just copy and paste tags. Takes only about 30 seconds more to do...but makes it look purty.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Link.

Despite only making up less than 13% of the population, blacks are the most frequent homicide offenders.

Now, where's that guy who used to say that whites were genetically predisposed to racism?

ahh but it's the Quality of the crimes white guys commit, not the quantity that matters...

White criminal "gang related race killing, bah, thats soo 90's we can beat that"

*next day "Boom Colombine bitches..top that!!"


silly post for silly thread