Originally posted by Robtard
It wasn't meant as a personal attack about your height nor anything to do with actual dancing. You simply keep dodging and side stepping [hence 'Tiny Dancer] a question, which is based off of your logic because it shows how faulty it is. I am merely pointing out your tendency to do so.See above... that was another "dodge & sidestep"... I asked you a question; you refused to answer it because I didn't cite any proof... I cite proof and you still continue to dodge and sidestep. Talk about being "objective".
"In 2001, the chances of going to prison were highest among black males (32.2%) and Hispanic males (17.2%) and lowest among white males (5.9%). The lifetime chances of going to prison among black females (5.6%) were nearly as high as for white males. Hispanic females (2.2%) and white females (0.9%) had much lower chances of going to prison."
So? Should we abort black male babies because they have a statistically higher chance of committing a crime? Remember what you said about 'the poor and crime rates' as a reason to stop poor people having children; be "objective" now.
lol wtf? I didn't and haven't yet dodged any of your barrage of questions. I answered your last post. Are you missing my answers on purpose?
And i'll answer this question too. (I should embolden it with caps just incase you should miss it.)
Based on my "logic" then my answer is no. We should not abort black male babies because they have a statistically higher chance of committing a crime because it would be pointless and and would undermining the bigger goal which would be to prevent the poor from having kids. In order to salvage the economy, in terms of this case, the bigger issue has to be tackled: Poverty. Not race. The poor, of any race, commit more crimes than young black children, you should know that. Therefore the poor will have to sacrifice. Not blacks.
That's why I say no.
Originally posted by Robtard"In 2001, the chances of going to prison were highest among black males (32.2%) and Hispanic males (17.2%) and lowest among white males (5.9%). The lifetime chances of going to prison among black females (5.6%) were nearly as high as for white males. Hispanic females (2.2%) and white females (0.9%) had much lower chances of going to prison."
These stats are accurate but do not also show that the system is racist. I am too lazy to explain but yea...
Oh and FOTN, it is not as simple as "poverty." There are more poor people/middle class by far than rich; therefore, stats showing more criminals are orginially poor is a bad way to explain that criminal intent orginates strictly from poverty. (Certainly when "rich" criminals tend to pull off multi-million dollar shit and get two years in a cozy cabin while I would get a minimum of 20 years for simply attempting a bank robbery).
what no SnoopY
no Mandela
no Jimmy Hendrix
NO Marvin Gaye
no Bill Cosby
no Janet Jackson
no Tiger Woods
No Mohammed ALI
no Tyra Banks Halle Berry Alicia Keys Beyonce
no Michael Jordan
no Chris Rock!! Eddoe Murphey!! Richard Pryor!!! Denzel Washington Dr Dre
GET YOUR MIND RIGHT
Charles Dickens was born poor from poor people born from poor people
so has just about everyone who has had the Hunger, Drive and Imagination to achieve anything of lasting significance.
invention and innovation are the antithesis to poverty
Originally posted by don't shiv
what no SnoopY
no Mandela
no Jimmy Hendrix
NO Marvin Gaye
no Bill Cosby
no Janet Jackson
no Tiger WoodsNo Mohammed ALI
no Tyra Banks Halle Berry Alicia Keys Beyonce
no Michael Jordan
no Chris Rock!! Eddoe Murphey!! Richard Pryor!!! Denzel Washington Dr DreGET YOUR MIND RIGHT
Charles Dickens was born poor from poor people born from poor people
so has just about everyone who has had the Hunger, Drive and Imagination to achieve anything of lasting significance.invention and innovation are the antithesis to poverty
Funny how none of them is a great scientist....
But I would make an exception for Jimi Hendrix, Marvin Gaye and Richard Pryor.
Originally posted by chithappens
These stats are accurate but do not also show that the system is racist. I am too lazy to explain but yea...Oh and FOTN, it is not as simple as "poverty." There are more poor people/middle class by far than rich; therefore, stats showing more criminals are orginially poor is a bad way to explain that criminal intent orginates strictly from poverty. (Certainly when "rich" criminals tend to pull off multi-million dollar shit and get two years in a cozy cabin while I would get a minimum of 20 years for simply attempting a bank robbery).
Those stats are not concrete accurate. There's always a margin of error in statistics where it's always given or taken aback by a few percentage points.
And it is as simple as poverty. And yes, I do know that there are more poor people than there are rich but the reason they get off is because they have the ability to get the best legal defense there is. So? You'd do 20 cause you'd most likely have a public defender, which are sh*t. Makes sense. Nothing illogical about it.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I thought the bigger goal was to have less crime. Poor black males statistically commit the most crime, therefore they should be the primary target of this eugenics. It's just logical, right? 🙂
No. It's not just logical.
Yes. The bigger goal is to have less crime. You're right. However you're dead wrong with the idea of trying to wipe out the entire black race in this situation, as much as a certain group of Americans want this.
So let me ask you this. Statistically, who commits more crime. Poor black males or poor people overall?
We both know it's poor people overall. therefore they should be the primary target of eugenics. That's what logical.
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Those stats are not concrete accurate. There's always a margin of error in statistics where it's always given or taken aback by a few percentage points.And it is as simple as poverty. And yes, I do know that there are more poor people than there are rich but the reason they get off is because they have the ability to get the best legal defense there is. So? You'd do 20 cause you'd most likely have a public defender, which are sh*t. Makes sense. Nothing illogical about it.
Please do not insult everyone's intelligence by talking about margin of error. That is a "duh" thing to say.
The 20 years I would receive is a "mandatory" minimum. Public, private, whatever defender can not save anyone from that. "Getting off" is not only about your lawyer.
There are lot of mandatory minimums that do not make sense and are blantly racist and financially bias like possesion of cocaine gets a larger mandatory minimum than say rape. Silly indeed.
Originally posted by FistOfThe NorthSince it is a sub set of poor people overall I would say that is logical.
No. It's not just logical.Yes. The bigger goal is to have less crime. You're right. However you're dead wrong with the idea of trying to wipe out the entire black race in this situation, as much as a certain group of Americans want this.
So let me ask you this. Statistically, who commits more crime. Poor black males or poor people overall?
We both know it's poor people overall. therefore they should be the primary target of eugenics. That's what logical.
But you have to start somewhere, and the blacks are statistically the majority, so, lets just wipe them out to begin with your very good plan.