Facts about racism

Post Reply New Topic

I didn't originally, I just said it spiked after the Civil Rights Movement. I guess I could have been more specific.

So you have never talked to a vet about castrating a male pet?

Why do you think vet doctors suggest your pet be castrated (testicles removed)?

EDIT:
ON google there are plenty of pet websites that explain how cut off testicles --> less aggression ---> safer pets

Animals do not have the capacity to reason; however, human males do, and they are not slaves to their hormonal impulses. To suggest otherwise is dehumanising and reductive.

What matters is the receptivity to the binding of T with the androgen receptors (e.g., the quantity of receptors, binding capability, the binding rate ....).

Likely there's no research on that, just public opinion.

Of course, online, people just say, "has more T".


Non-human animals can't reason?

Humans males are not slaves to their hormonal impulses?

These statements are contrary to common knowledge.

There's not exactly a dearth of likewise sexist "common knowledge" against females, either.

Castrate all men, and yes crime will cease, because the whole human race will DIE!

Besides, I think there'd be a lot of women quite unhappy about that measure. They might revolt violently against whoever decided to implement it

Seriously? Do you understand anything about stats? This is so dishonest it's not even funny. Either you are intentionally muddying the waters, or you truly believe that you are doing the math right, but either way, what you are saying is utter horses**t.

First of all, you can't just say something like "five 9/11's" and not specify that you really mean this is over the course of 80 years. "Deliberately not saying" something doesn't mean anyone has a clue what you actually are talking about. But I think you knew that already.

Another little issue: 9/11 took place in one day, and it was an attack on innocent civilians by Islamic terrorists. Not only that, but many, many people respond emotionally to this event being brought up, so to compare it to something like police killings over the course of a much longer period of time is completely stupid. You could do that with any disaster as long as you specificy the right number of years.

Also, the 258 number INCLUDES justified killings. That's the total number. As in, violent criminals who were a danger to those around them at the time they were shot. So the fact that you would compare this to innocents being killed in acts of senseless violence is extremely disrespectful.

And finally, no, your math is wrong, not to mention pointless. First of all, you don't know how the rate of killings is going to change over the course of 80 years. So making numbers based off this idea that it will not change is stupid. Second, like I said, only 38 were unarmed. Even though most of those were also justified, just to show how wrong you are, I'll round it up to 50 and say they were all unjustified, like a true regressive. 50 per year x 80 years = 4000. That's not even two 9/11's, never mind the fact that this is over the course of an entire lifetime.

I find what you are doing here to be utterly deplorable, honestly. Come back when you've learned how math works.

with respect to car sports, some people like car races around a track better, and some people like cars in rally's better.

one is a racist and the other is a rallyist. what a coincidence.
it is totally irrelevant to the conversation but i just thought of it so i said it.

Racism is superficial and thereby stupid - no matter who is treating whomever with prejudicial malice or favor based on their outward appearance.

I certainly should hope so!

Very, very true. And no one is stupider than those who justify racism as a way to ensure racial survival.

Yeah, that's all silly and just an excuse.

You said that the cause of higher crime rates amongst black populations was that black men have more testosterone.

Not only have you failed to demonstrate that black men have more testosterone, you have also failed to show that it is "the culprit", as opposed to the social issues associated with black communities (poverty, racism, poor education).

You're the one attacking people for criticising murders.


Being armed is not a crime in America because you have the second amendment. Again, it's a regular occurrence to hear of "armed" black men being shot despite not being a threat to life - Tamir Rice is the best example, but also Laquan McDonald, Philando Castille, etc.

I thought it would be obvious to any intelligent person that when I said "there are x African Americans" that it would be over a whole lifecourse. I'm sorry if it confused you.

The rate could go up or down, of course - but if it doesn't, we'll have five 9/11s on our hands. Yes, I'm using an emotive comparison. It's called rhetoric. It's an effective way of conveying to people that the thing they're playing down is a serious issue. I was not attempting to accurately project the number of innocent black people killed by police officers over the next 80 years, not least because nobody's bothered collecting the data until recently.

And yes, reducing violent crime would go a long way.

Criticizing murders? No, that is not what you are doing. Without taking a close, objective look at the statistics and individual cases you are referring to, what you have done is taken every police killing of black people, justified and unjustified (the 258 number), and called them all murder, by including them all in your little 9/11 math trick, instead of using the actual number of police murders (which by the way, all end with the officer being convicted of murder). What you are doing, pure and simple, is smearing innocent cops with totally baseless accusations of racism and murder. Not only that, you compare these justified and unjustified individual killings to a major act of death-cult terrorism that in a single day killed thousands of people, and had a huge and lasting impact on America and the world, and then innocently say, "It's just rhetoric". No, it is a completely false analogy, it is a cheap debate tactic, and I'm not buying it.

I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking your words. You are attacking me, however, and you're certainly attacking innocent police. So yes, I will call you out on it, and I will shame you for your dishonest behavior.


You know what is a crime, though? Committing crimes. And guess what? That is what the vast majority of armed black men are doing when they are shot by police. They are not following police orders, brandishing weapons at officers or civilians, resisting arrest, and yes, many times they are even in the middle of trying to kill someone. Often this someone is the officer, who then shoots them in self defense. This goes for many unarmed cases as well, as they will try to overpower officers to take their guns and shoot them.

This happens all the time, and it is quite often a black man; in fact, it is way more often than you would expect, given that they only make up 13% of the US population. That is just a fact. You seem pretty far-removed from reality when it comes to these issues, though, and you don't seem willing to consider any details that you may not have already considered.

If you humble yourself, realize you may not be an expert on this issue, and decide that maybe it's time to do some objective research, here's a link that proves just how wrong you are: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... shootings/

Though I'm quite sure if you do, you'll simply cherry-pick the most questionable cases, and make claims of racism where evidence for it is simply not present. But hey, at least I tried.


How does using the current number of black people in America equate to saying, "over the course of a lifetime", exactly? And now you're attacking me for being confused that you switched the time frame we were discussing from one year to eighty for no real reason other than to compare it to 9/11, and without specifying exactly how you got the number.

Honestly, I just assumed you were making an innocent error, by accidentally using a percentage of deaths and applying it to the living population, believing that this represented the number of currently-living blacks that would be dead in a year, because the one year time frame is what we were talking about. Now I see it was actually just a sly trick to intentionally exaggerate the problem to seem exponentially larger than it actually is.

So yeah, my bad.


9/11 took place in a single day, and it was a massive death-cult terrorist attack that had huge and lasting negative impacts on the world. The victims of 9/11 were ALL innocent, except for the terrorists themselves. It was an act of senseless violence based on nothing more than religious fanaticism. So no, justified and unjustified police killings in the US are not "five 9/11s". You don't just get to take the death toll of something, multiply it, and compare it to 9/11 as if it is similar, when in fact it is dissimilar in every way that matters.


Yes, it's specifically called hyperbole, and it is an emotional appeal, not a logical one. More importantly, it is a false analogy. There is no logical reason to compare a 1 year time frame with an 80 year time frame, let alone to compare it to 1 day. If you are trying to accurately portray the scale of an issue, as an honest person would do, you would simply give the raw numbers and facts. You wouldn't need to multiply the number so you could more easily compare it to a huge disaster that is not even close to comparable, in scale or in impact; and not only that, but you, in an underhanded way, make it sound as though it's 5 times worse than that huge disaster. And you were initially unclear on your method of attaining this number, so unless you think people are supposed to be able to read your mind, you were being intentionally misleading.

And no, insinuating that I'm unintelligent for not seeing this does not constitute a defense. The actual reason I was confused is because I assumed you wouldn't intentionally make such a huge leap in logic to compare the events over the course of 80 years, which you couldn't possibly even know, to a single event that is different in almost every way imaginable, and describe it as simply using effective rhetoric, but I guess I was wrong. Sorry for assuming the best of you, I guess.


If you have to multiply a yearly death toll by 80 in order to compare it to an attack that took place in a single day to make it seem serious, then you are simply exaggerating the problem, not effectively conveying the truth about an issue. The fact that you would take your exaggeration and compare it to the actual scale that the issue is, and then say that I'm actually the one downplaying a serious issue, is completely f*****g absurd. If you were comparing something of similar scale, then it would be fine, but you are not, and it makes you look very bad. What you're doing is using a cheap debate tactic, similar to comparing a group you disagree with Nazis. Everyone can see that you're wrong, so I strongly suggest you stop defending your shameful comparison, for the sake of your own image.

But since you a probably won't back off this ridiculous 9/11 BS, I will simply beat you at your own game. Ok, here goes: How many years of black-on-black crime does it take to get to 9/11? *drumroll* ................... less than a year. Not 80. Get it? It's usually a number around 4500 per year (and this is a low estimate, I'm pretty sure it is actually a bit more). And those are ALL murders with black victims, unlike the 258 justified and unjustified shootings that you are using for your false analogy. 5 years, that's about 9 or 10 9/11's. 80 years? 120 9/11's.

And you say I'm downplaying serious issues? Yeah, right. You are being dishonest to the extreme.


Yeah, I got that. You don't seem keen on accurately portraying anything.


Oh, well aren't you virtuous?