The Knockout Game__blacks attack whites; simply for fun???[w:147]

[johndylan1]

I need more convincing evidence that this is actually a wide spread problem before I'm willing to label it as something other than a few sporadic incidents perpetrated by callous youths who have a history (across races) of getting caught up in stupid stuff like this.

This is indicative of broken families, but again that is across races. Teens and young adults aimlessly wandering the streets of our cities left to their own devices and boredom has never been a good thing.

Ya know, crimes of desperation and crimes of passion can at least be comprehensible. Even stupid pranks and vandalism can be understood as boredom, but this is a different level of crime altogether, this is more akin to abuse. Incomprehensible at any level.

 

[Paratrooper]

Blacks are 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against whites then vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit a robbery.

Forty-five percent of black crime is against whites, 43 against other blacks, and 10 percent against Hispanic.

Federal Statistics of black on white violence, with links and mathematical extrapolation formulas. - Lafayette Political Buzz | Examiner.com

While most violent crime is indeed intrarracial, 26.7 percent of homicides where the victim is a stranger are interracial. And in 2008, the offending rate for blacks (24.7 offenders per 100,000) was seven times higher than the rate for whites (3.4 offenders per 100,000), according to the latest figures from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS).

Black-on-white crime in America | Star Tribune

I could not find info that supported Manc's assessment but I found plenty that counters it.

 

[Bodi]

Let's forget the meme-of-the-week, it's worn out it's welcome among the sane, poppng up all over the interwebz and several threads per site.

Something like 70% of racially aggravated assaults are white on black.

And white crimes against blacks are 28 more times likely to be classified as Hate Crimes as well so that completely screws up your 70% stat.

 

[Bodi]

where can I find this stat?

He can't link his imagination...

 

[Gipper]

Did you know that hot white chicks are getting into this game too? Apparently one ass-grab and they wanna start playing.

 

[Manc Skipper]

And white crimes against blacks are 28 more times likely to be classified as Hate Crimes as well so that completely screws up your 70% stat.

I misremembered,

"Known Offender's Race by Bias Motivation report." .

"The report states that among hate crime offenses motivated by race, 70% were composed of anti-black bias, while 17.7% were of anti-white bias, and 5% were of anti-Asian or Pacific Islander bias."

 

[Gomario]

The different genetics associated with these adaptations are not enough to seperate extant humans into more than one subspecies. Further, all the genetics of European and Asian populations are included in the African gene pool.

WTF . . . Wrong again! NOT all the genes of European and Asian populations are included in the African gene pool ! ! ! Ever heard of Neanthertals? Up to 5% of European and Asian genes originate from the Neanthertal gene pool. Surprisingly enough, the African gene pool is the only one without ANY neathertal component whatsoever! You are a TROLL wanting to confuse the forumites and instigate racial hatred. Pleeeeeease STOP this behaviour or a ban is comming your way!

 

[mac]

WTF . . . Wrong again! NOT all the genes of European and Asian populations are included in the African gene pool ! ! ! Ever heard of Neanthertals? Up to 5% of European and Asian genes originate from the Neanthertal gene pool. Surprisingly enough, the African gene pool is the only one without ANY neathertal component whatsoever! You are a TROLL wanting to confuse the forumites and instigate racial hatred. Pleeeeeease STOP this behaviour or a ban is comming your way!

Where did neanderthals originate from?

 

[Gomario]

Where did neanderthals originate from?

It has nothing to do with your statement. You said, ALL the genetic material is included. I proved you wrong! You are spreading lies. You said something untrue. Your statement was a lie! Your credibility is gone. From now on, the forumites will look at what you are saying and take it with "salt and pepper"

 

[Empirica]

Really. What other human "races" exist other than Homo sapien?

The "Homosapien/human species" is comprised of three basic and distinct "races":

Caucasoid(white/european); Mongoloid(yellow/oriental/asian) and Negroid(black/sub-saharan/african)

There are also several sub-races such as dark-complected/mediterraneans; american indians and australian aborigines; etc_

Their distinct racial variances are the result of the genetic evolution which developed the specialized biological and psychological survival traits necessary to their particular environments; some of which are obvious and others not so much_

Many liberals object to the word "race" being used to group humans; so please feel free to substitute the term you are most comfortable with_

 

[mac]

It has nothing to do with your statement. You said, ALL the genetic material is included. I proved you wrong! You are spreading lies. You said something untrue. Your statement was a lie! Your credibility is gone. From now on, the forumites will look at what you are saying and take it with "salt and pepper"

It is all included. Neanderthal and Sapien are 99.5% gentically incommon having both descended from the same parent species. If you understand genetics, you'd understand that any genetic sharing among the two originated from the same place. I imagine if I called it inbreeding, you'd understand the point better.

Regarldess, the idea that there is Neanderthal dna in modern humans is controversial, not proven.

 

[mac]

The "Homosapien/human species" is comprised of three basic and distinct "races":

Caucasoid(white/european); Mongoloid(yellow/oriental/asian) and Negroid(black/sub-saharan/african)

There are also several sub-races such as dark-complected/mediterraneans; american indians and australian aborigines; etc_

Their distinct racial variances are the result of the genetic evolution which developed the specialized biological and psychological survival traits necessary to their particular environments; some of which are obvious and others not so much_

Many liberals object to the word "race" being used to group humans; so please feel free to substitute the term you are most comfortable with_

Social construct...not biology. There is no real evidence that the very superficial discriminators you described result from anything other than selective pressure. :shrug:

 

[Empirica]

Social construct

...not biology.

The one and only "social construct" I have ever seen in place to influence society's racial perception has been Political Correctness_

Although I'm sure PC does to some extent exasperate the problem with its never-ending barrage of excuses for criminal behavior_

There is no real evidence that the very superficial discriminators you described

Genetics is a well accepted 21st Century science except in social issues concerning race despite being a totally color blind "discriminator"_

A widely held theory of many geneticist is that our genes are likely responsible for most of our biological and even psychological intricacies_

They have suggested genetics is likely responsible for such things as a person's susceptibility to addiction or even one's political affiliation_

This theory should be of no surprise to anyone considering such things as mental illness being linked to one's family history__ie genetics_

result from anything other than selective pressure. :shrug:

And exactly what is this "selective pressure" you are referring to???

 

[mac]

The one and only "social construct" I have ever seen in place to influence society's racial perception has been Political Correctness_

Although I'm sure PC does to some extent exasperate the problem with its never-ending barrage of excuses for criminal behavior_

Genetics is a well accepted 21st Century science except in social issues concerning race despite being a totally color blind "discriminator"_

A widely held theory of many geneticist is that our genes are likely responsible for most of our biological and even psychological intricacies_

They have suggested genetics is likely responsible for such things as a person's susceptibility to addiction or even one's political affiliation_

This theory should be of no surprise to anyone considering such things as mental illness being linked to one's family history__ie genetics_

And exactly what is this "selective pressure" you are referring to???

Well, it's clear you don't understand the science here and are content to rely on some white power brochure you've picked up. Perhaps if you did, you would understand to what "selective pressure" refers.

 

[Empirica]

Well, it's clear you don't understand the science here and are content to rely on some white power brochure you've picked up. Perhaps if you did, you would understand to what "selective pressure" refers.

I understand "the science here" and exactly "to what selective pressure refers" but not what you believe the source of that pressure was_

I wanted to see if you would attribute selective pressure to white intervention but I was surprised it came in the form of the Race Card_

It's quite obvious your opinions and therefore your arguments are rooted in the taboos of Political Correctness rather than empirical facts_

If your best and only argument is "white power" and "racism" and "accusations of ignorance" then you're way out of your league here Mac_

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

I don't often find that people can be as blunt and succinct as this AND be correct.

Hmmmm... surely something to ponder.

However, do you truly believe such things cannot be distilled down to their fundamental essence?

And if what you say is most often the case, how does your own summation of his fare? Well lets see, you summed up his 63 words in 17 being pretty brief in your bluntness along the way, so that would most likely mean you are automatically incorrect then. Right?

I would say his has more of the ring of truth to it than does yours. Just saying...

 

[Bodi]

Hmmmm... surely something to ponder.

However, do you truly believe such things cannot be distilled down to their fundamental essence?

And if what you say is most often the case, how does your own summation of his fare? Well lets see, you summed up his 63 words in 17 being pretty brief in your bluntness along the way, so that would most likely mean you are automatically incorrect then. Right?

I would say his has more of the ring of truth to it than does yours. Just saying...

I read this about 4 times and I am still not sure what you are really saying... I agree with this:

Originally Posted by eohrnberger
It's no wonder that violent crimes seem to be involving more African Americans, and that it stems from the family and community values their youth are exposed to during their upbringing. One just has to look as to how the Democratic / liberal / progressive led war on poverty has destroyed their family unit. This is the fall out and blow back from that.

His has truth but my agreeing doesn't?

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

I read this about 4 times and I am still not sure what you are really saying... I agree with this:



His has truth but my agreeing doesn't?

What part do you not understand...? It is hard for me to fathom which part might be difficult.

Talk about hard to understand, I was of the opinion when you answered to his comment such, "I don't often find that people can be as blunt and succinct as this AND be correct", that appeared to me to be saying that if one put things this simply that it would be hard for them to be also correct.

Is that not what you were attempting to say? If not, my bad... but if not, evidently you might be the one that needs to work a bit on being understood.

 

[Bodi]

What part do you not understand...? It is hard for me to fathom which part might be difficult.

Talk about hard to understand, I was of the opinion when you answered to his comment such, "I don't often find that people can be as blunt and succinct as this AND be correct", that appeared to me to be saying that if one put things this simply that it would be hard for them to be also correct.

Is that not what you were attempting to say? If not, my bad... but if not, evidently you might be the one that needs to work a bit on being understood.

Uhh... I was saying that he was Blunt, Succinct AND Correct. The two "be's" are the operative connectors. Did I clear that up or make it worse? :lol:

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Uhh... I was saying that he was Blunt, Succinct AND Correct. The two "be's" are the operative connectors. Did I clear that up or make it worse? :lol:

Sure... but you might want to make it more clear in the future... the "don't often find" leads one to think that for all three, blunt, succinct AND correct to be in alignment is the rarity and there was nothing to confirm this was that rarity you were trying to say.

Plus, I would rather think that if Opendebate reads this, she will take her "like" of your post away.

Other than that, I agree with your summation if that is what you actually mean.

 

[mac]

I understand "the science here" and exactly "to what selective pressure refers" but not what you believe the source of that pressure was_

I wanted to see if you would attribute selective pressure to white intervention but I was surprised it came in the form of the Race Card_

It's quite obvious your opinions and therefore your arguments are rooted in the taboos of Political Correctness rather than empirical facts_

If your best and only argument is "white power" and "racism" and "accusations of ignorance" then you're way out of your league here Mac_

Selective pressure has nothing to do with white intervention. Why don't you just go back to shaving your head?

 

[Bodi]

Sure... but you might want to make it more clear in the future... the "don't often find" leads one to think that for all three, blunt, succinct and correct to be in alignment is the rarity and there was nothing to confirm this was that rarity you were trying to say.

Plus, I would rather think that if Opendebate reads this, she will take her "like" of your post away.

Other than that, I agree with your summation if that is what you actually mean.

It's pretty clear. Ask opendebate about it if you like. I would suggest though, that if something seems unclear... do not assume. You kinda came at me here, were incorrect in your assumption, suggest that I need to be more clear and then question if I actually meant what I said? Excuse me if I am incorrect here, but you kind of sound like your being a jerk.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

It's pretty clear. Ask opendebate about it if you like. I would suggest though, that if something seems unclear... do not assume. You kinda came at me here, were incorrect in your assumption, suggest that I need to be more clear and then question if I actually meant what I said? Excuse me if I am incorrect here, but you kind of sound like your being a jerk.

Nah, was not clear at all...that would be your faulty opinion, again. And all that jerk stuff, perhaps a quick peek in a mirror might lead you to truth, if you have one lying about.

I know Opendebate's general opinion on such things... but if you want, you can ask her, she "liked" what you said, not what I said.

Not to nit pick, but it would be you're, not your, being a jerk...yanno?

 

[Bodi]

Nah, was not clear at all...that would be your faulty opinion, again. And all that jerk stuff, perhaps a quick peek in a mirror might lead you to truth, if you have one lying about.

I know Opendebate's general opinion on such things... but if you want, you can ask her, she "liked" what you said, not what I said.

Not to nit pick, but it would be you're, not your, being a jerk...yanno?

Gaugingcatenate = Waste of Time

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Gaugingcatenate = Waste of Time

Nice... but again, cannot really count it as being well said, right? Nah, a "blunt" and "succinct" opinion, unsupported, a complete lack of substance coupled with total illogic ... and, perhaps worse of all, not even witty.

Should, though, be a sure indicator of how diverse the opinion is against the liberal state that has brought us to the point of where maybe this OP takes us... similar opinions coming all the way from those who cannot make themselves understood all the way to those of us who can... :lamoeace