Originally posted by Lestov16
That's a faulty analogy. AIDS and cancer aren't interrelated like police corruption and gang violence are.
You make a good point. I just have to ask if you realize you also in a way made my point though? You just admitted they are interrelated and thus if that is true you won't ever be able to completely solve one without putting any effort into working on the other as well.
I mean since you just pretty much said if aids and cancer were interrelated it would be prudent to be trying to work on them both, right? I mean did I misunderstand you?
You do realize you're arguing with someone adopting the victim mentality in all aspects of life? Everything is everyone else's fault. My god, I'd hate myself if I adopted that mentality and my people have been routinely exterminated throughout the past 5,000 years, as well as having endured slavery in Egypt twice as long slavery in the US.
Essentially we're at a crossroads. The main question is: who should clean up the scum in their crowd first? Should blacks begin persecuting gangs in their neighborhoods and in response police will start cleaning up their corruption, or should police begin persecuting their corrupt officers first and in response black ghettos will clean up their gangs?
People like myself and BLM believe it should be the latter, since unlike gangbangers, they're bound by legal obligation to be honorable, so their governmental corruption and thus essential authoritarianism is more worrying IMO. People like yourself believe the former, as you find the high black crime rates more worrying.
This is where we are at. Don't think either side is going to budge on their stance, as both stances have legitimate merit, so like I said, we're at a crossroads.
Originally posted by NemeBro
I'm sure he viewed himself as being heavily at risk from a guy he had on the ground on his stomach with his hands held behind his back.Also, who cares? Most actions done by men have a reason explaining why they were done. It means nothing if the explanation fails to justify the action, at least in this context.
Everybody cares.
It's being framed as racism when there's more to it then that.
A police officer killing someone because he's a racist and a police officer killing someone because he's doing a poor risk assessment are two different things.
Originally posted by NemeBro
Because it's not his point. He is saying, outright, that the reason homeboy was killed is because of his criminal background.When the ultimate reason for his death seems to be poor judgment, be it from incompetence or racism or whatever, from a police officer.
Don't try to frame Surtur's thoughts as being that both sides need to change for things to get better. They're not.
Judging from his posts and arguments in this thread, however, I would say that his point is exactly what I've made it out to be.
Originally posted by you get thorns
Pedant bait. Pretty effective I might add. You two should critique my punctuation as well. I always leave a little something for the needy.
No point in any of your posts? Check
Turning to sarcasm while appearing insecure? Check
Pretending to be in complete control of your emotions when the opposite is obvious? Check
Originally posted by you get thornsi was going to ask you to speak English once again but I'm getting the feeling that isn't your first language. The alternative is that you're just dumb because you keep posting without making sense.
Pathetic. Does that even make sense to you or are you just compelled to post.I know, you just can't resist me. I have that effect on bitches, all bitches. We all have our crosses to bear.
Originally posted by krisblaze
Everybody cares.It's being framed as racism when there's more to it then that.
A police officer killing someone because he's a racist and a police officer killing someone because he's doing a poor risk assessment are two different things.
What, specifically, are you referring to being framed as racism? Is it a specific case like the Sterling one, or more generally the issue of black men being more likely to be killed?
Also, if black men are more likely to be killed by police because the actions of black criminals means that police are more apt to kill them due to viewing them as more of a risk based on their skin, then no, it actually is as simple as racism. Is that not what you were saying? How do you address the apparent fact that the relatively high frequency of violent crime among blacks has no correlation with their greater risk of being shot by the police?
Furthermore, as I touched on with Surtur, a huge point of contention is not merely that black men are more likely to be killed by the police, but the perception that police officers who commit these killings are given slaps on the wrist. Is there any data comparing police shooting acquittal rates by race of the victim?
I'm not sure how you've gotten such an intimate understanding of Surtur.Judging from his posts and arguments in this thread, however, I would say that his point is exactly what I've made it out to be.
I'm a people person.
Of course you would. It is the more charitable interpretation, as well as one which fits your own beliefs.