• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Whites suddenly abandon the idea of meritocracy

Family expecations and requirements

When a Chinese or Vietnamese parent (for example) sacrificied and risked so much to bring their childern over to the US (or Canada) in order to give the child a better future, that parent is going to do whatever they can to ensure that future is realized. In the case of many chinese, that means ensuring a high level of educational success. The number of chinese parents placing education as a priority is I believe at a much higher rate then it is for non chinese americans (with the exception of some other groups like jewish americans, for example).

Having been to China, a few times, there are alot of stupid chinese people as well. It is not really genetic, it is just that the most motivated are the ones to immigrate

That's a good point...Chinese/Vietnamese/Indian etc Americans are raised by families that have decided to travel half way around the world to give their kids/themselves and opportunity they don't have in their home country. You better believe they will do everything possible to make sure/enable their child to do well. It's a self selecting population. Not very many lazy/bad parents are making that trip.
 
Chicago's murder rates are much lower than they were in the 70's, 80's, and early 90's.

Adding to this, this year Chicago has seen 258 murders so far in 8.5 months. This puts us "on pace" for around 365 total murders this year. Compare this to August 21st of last year when the year-to-date murder total was 346.

Now here's why this is important. In 1928, (that's right 1928), there were 399 total homicides in Chicago. In 1974, that umber was 970! in 1988, it was 660. 1992 had 943 murders. Last year we had 506. The year before it was only 435. We're on pace to have the lowest murder rate Chicago has seen since the 60's, but you'd never be able to tell with the load of pure bull**** people are spewing about Chicago.
 
Adding to this, this year Chicago has seen 258 murders so far in 8.5 months. This puts us "on pace" for around 365 total murders this year. Compare this to August 21st of last year when the year-to-date murder total was 346.

Now here's why this is important. In 1928, (that's right 1928), there were 399 total homicides in Chicago. In 1974, that umber was 970! in 1988, it was 660. 1992 had 943 murders. Last year we had 506. The year before it was only 435. We're on pace to have the lowest murder rate Chicago has seen since the 60's, but you'd never be able to tell with the load of pure bull**** people are spewing about Chicago.

you are still more likely to be murdered in Chicago than you are to die in combat in Afghanistan. ;) just saying......
 
LOL !!!

" Legacy admits " ? You guys are so predictable.

You frame the Conversation by establishing your false narratives on exagerated terms.

First you personally define the two extremes, ( Ivy league students who recieved admission based solely on Legacy " and poor mistreated victims of white priviledge and racism ) and then proceed to make the case based on these irrelevent and innacurate stero-types.

And in the process completely missed the point and/or any substantial part of the issue.

Its why places are like the South Side of Chicago, Detroit, Kansas City, New Orleans and parts of Atlanta have been stuck in this perpetual state of desperation.

Democrats, really " swell classy people"...

Your plattitudes and your false narratives like "income disparity" , white priveledge, institutionalized racism and just the general " eat the rich claptrap are more valuable to you people than actually addressing the issue honestly and truly offering these people any real help.

You need manufactured issues like poverty and violence and generational dependency because it guarantees a vote for your side, but you call Tea Party members racist....lol.

" legacy admissions "........LOL !! How desperately ignorant and its right out of the old Democrat palybook.

I've never known anyone use so many words to say so little ... and talk about playbooks! For most of this country's history white men have held the most prestigious, highest paying, most powerful jobs -- bordering on a quota in fact ... Where was the meritocracy in that Fen? No, the LOL is all mine, and all you have is a false consciousness and dwindling privilege ... have a good one ... :lamo
 
you are still more likely to be murdered in Chicago than you are to die in combat in Afghanistan. ;) just saying......

Not true. What are there, 68,000 or so US troop in Afghanistan? Let's be generous and call it 200,000 people who have served in Afghanistan this year (almost three times as many than what is actually there). Of those, 84 have died thus far this year.

That 42 per 100,000 using the incredibly over inflated total of 200,000.

there are 2.4 million people who live in Chicago. Millions more are in Chicago each day, but we'll be generous and just talk about people who live in Chicago. There have been 258 murders. That's about 11 people per hundred thousand. Using those unrealistic and totally skewed in favor of your claim numbers, you'd still be 4 times more likely to die in Afghanistan.


If we use the more realistic 68,000 number, the death rate in Afghanistan jumps up to about 123 per 100,000. If we use the more realistic number of 3 million people in Chicago at any given time, the rate here drops to 8.6.

If we decide to use "killed in action", that's 60 instead of 84, and the rate becomes 88 per 100,000.

No matter how you slice it, you're 10 times more likely to die in combat in Afghanistan than you are to be murdered in Chicago.

As I said, there's a lot of bull**** spewed about Chicago. Almost none of it is based in reality.
 
Not true. What are there, 68,000 or so US troop in Afghanistan? Let's be generous and call it 200,000 people who have served in Afghanistan this year (almost three times as many than what is actually there). Of those, 84 have died thus far this year.

That 42 per 100,000 using the incredibly over inflated total of 200,000.

there are 2.4 million people who live in Chicago. Millions more are in Chicago each day, but we'll be generous and just talk about people who live in Chicago. There have been 258 murders. That's about 11 people per hundred thousand. Using those unrealistic and totally skewed in favor of your claim numbers, you'd still be 4 times more likely to die in Afghanistan.


If we use the more realistic 68,000 number, the death rate in Afghanistan jumps up to about 123 per 100,000. If we use the more realistic number of 3 million people in Chicago at any given time, the rate here drops to 8.6.

If we decide to use "killed in action", that's 60 instead of 84, and the rate becomes 88 per 100,000.

No matter how you slice it, you're 10 times more likely to die in combat in Afghanistan than you are to be murdered in Chicago.

As I said, there's a lot of bull**** spewed about Chicago. Almost none of it is based in reality.

Let's get some real numbers.

Since the U.S. went to war in Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003, about 2.5 million members of the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard and related Reserve and National Guard units have been deployed in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, according to Department of Defense data. Of those, more than a third were deployed more than once.

In fact, as of last year nearly 37,000 Americans had been deployed more than five times, among them 10,000 members of guard or Reserve units. Records also show that 400,000 service members have done three or more deployments.

Millions went to war in Iraq, Afghanistan, leaving many with lifelong scars | McClatchy

Should we include multiple tours as multiple people? Let's say we just go with the basic numbers from both wars (ignoring multiple deployments for 1/3 of them): 2.5m deployed, 6.6k killed.
 
Last edited:
Let's get some real numbers.



Millions went to war in Iraq, Afghanistan, leaving many with lifelong scars | McClatchy

Should we include multiple tours as multiple people? Let's say we just go with the basic numbers from both wars (ignoring multiple deployments for 1/3 of them): 2.5m deployed, 6.6k killed.

OK, then we should look at every person who has ever spent any significant time in Chicago over the last 11, 12 years to make a comparison. What is that? 10 million? 20 million? Looking at death rates and birth rates, we get close to that on it's own.

I gave the honest comparison. Numbers present this year to fatalities this year. Anyone who thinks Afghanistan is actually safer than Chicago is downright retarded.
 
OK, then we should look at every person who has ever spent any significant time in Chicago over the last 11, 12 years to make a comparison. What is that? 10 million? 20 million? Looking at death rates and birth rates, we get close to that on it's own.

I gave the honest comparison. Numbers present this year to fatalities this year. Anyone who thinks Afghanistan is actually safer than Chicago is downright retarded.

I'm aware of the difficulties in comparing apples and oranges. I believe the argument presented was something like ~"one is more likely to die living in Chicago than serving in Afghanistan". I don't think the comparison was intended to be 'living in Afghanistan vs. living in Chicago'. Nor was it 'serving in Afghanistan vs. having been in Chicago for at least a year'.

I think a fair (as much as possible given apples and oranges) comparison would be the odds of dying on deployment, including all deployments (including multiple deployments by the same person), vs. the chance of dying in Chicago (over the same time period). Both numbers should be based on the ~10 year time frame (so deaths in Chicago must be added over 10 years and then applied per cap, just as deployment deaths are over 10 years and then per cap).
 
Last edited:
I'm aware of the difficulties in comparing apples and oranges. I believe the argument presented was something like ~"one is more likely to die living in Chicago than serving in Afghanistan". I don't think the comparison was intended to be 'living in Afghanistan vs. living in Chicago'.

Of course. That's why I compared data of those SERVING in Afghanistan this year (and dying in Afghanistan this year) to those living in Chicago this year (and getting murdered in Chicago this year). It's way more dangerous to serve in Afghanistan than it is to live in Chicago. The data I presented were accurate. And it was honest because serving in Afghanistan is usually a short term thing, whereas living in Chicago is long term. The population of people serving has stayed fairly constant, and significantly below that of the population of Chicago, whereas the death rate of those serving has been significantly higher than the murder rate in chicago the whole time.

If I was just going with LIVING in Afghanistan, the numbers would have been way different because it would have been a hell of a lot higher than 84 or 60. .
 
Of course. That's why I compared data of those SERVING in Afghanistan this year (and dying in Afghanistan this year) to those living in Chicago this year (and getting murdered in Chicago this year). It's way more dangerous to serve in Afghanistan than it is to live in Chicago. The data I presented were accurate. And it was honest because serving in Afghanistan is usually a short term thing, whereas living in Chicago is long term. The population of people serving has stayed fairly constant, and significantly below that of the population of Chicago, whereas the death rate of those serving has been significantly higher than the murder rate in chicago the whole time.

If I was just going with LIVING in Afghanistan, the numbers would have been way different because it would have been a hell of a lot higher than 84 or 60. .

Your method of looking at one year for each is viable, but it ignores the inherent difference between 'serving in Afghanistan vs. living in Chicago'. What we are comparing by your method is basically living in Afghanistan vs. living in Chicago, and that was not the comparison presented.

To compare the odds of dying on deployment and dying in Chicago, we could look at both over the ~10 year period and include all deployments (including multiples). In this way, the comparison is for a single deployment (per cap) vs. living in Chicago over that ten year period (per cap).

We are trying to compare the odds of dying on deployment (based on number of deaths per deployment) vs. the odds of dying in Chicago (based on the number of deaths per resident). There is no way to reconcile it completely, as we are comparing different things.

And it was honest because serving in Afghanistan is usually a short term thing, whereas living in Chicago is long term.

But you are looking at, effectively, the same people living in Chicago over ten years. We are looking at many different waves of people going to Afghanistan. The Chicago number is static, the Afghan number is many waves of people.

I will agree that taking a straight up yearly pop vs. deaths is a way to compare, but it ignores that over a year in Afghanistan, many more people than the number there serve tours. Throughout the year, deployments end and begin. We might have twice as many deployments in Afghanistan as we have units there, in any given year (a bit longer than that, given deployment lengths).

Sure there are, let's say 68k units in Afghanistan, but there might have been 100k deployments (or more) to maintain that number. And, ultimately, we want to compare deployments vs. residency, not residency vs. residency. The number of deployments (~4m for both wars) FAR exceeds the number of units in country any given year - and that's the per cap we're looking for on that side of the equation. That the other side of the equation doesn't match is inherent to the comparison of different parameters and cannot be reconciled.
 
Last edited:
Your method of looking at one year for each is viable, but it ignores the inherent difference between 'serving in Afghanistan vs. living in Chicago'. What we are comparing by your method is basically living in Afghanistan vs. living in Chicago, and that was not the comparison presented.

False. We are comparing serving in Afghanistan right now to living in chicago right now. If I was comparing LIVING in Afghanistan, I'd include the thousands of other combat deaths each year other than those of US troops and have a much higher population number.

To compare the odds of dying on deployment and dying in Chicago, we could look at both over the ~10 year period and include all deployments (including multiples). In this way, the comparison is for a single deployment (per cap) vs. living in Chicago over that ten year period (per cap).

False. You'd have to look at the death rates that occurred WHILE deployed, not overall death rates over the long haul compared to the total number of people deployed. If, at any given time, the death rate stays constant at about 100 people per 100,000 deployed, then that is the rate. Just like the odds of being murdered in Chicago stays constant.

We are trying to compare the odds of dying on deployment (based on number of deaths per deployment) vs. the odds of dying in Chicago (based on the number of deaths per resident). There is no way to reconcile it completely, as we are comparing different things.


There is no way to reconcile it completely, but we CAN apply common sense and come to teh inteligent conclusion that teh bull**** narrative about living in chciago being more dangerous than serving in Afghanistan is retarded nonsense.



But you are looking at, effectively, the same people living in Chicago over ten years.

False. you are assuming a static, unchanging population, which is not the case. That actual individuals involved in the population fluctuate by hundreds of thousands as people move into and out of the city constantly (hey, it's just like how people get deployed and return home, look at that!) are born, die form other causes, etc etc etc.

You'd have to look at EVERY person who has lived in Chicago at all over the last 10 years, including every single person who has died in Chicago over the last 10 years through means OTEHR than murder (as they would also be included in the total number over that time), Since we're now talking about adding in millions of people and a number that cannot be reached.


The Chicago number is static, the Afghan number is many waves of people.

That's your false premise right there. It's not static. Where'd you get the idea it was? No city's population is even close to static. It's constantly shifting and changing. There's a core of peopel who are constant, but there's a significant shift every single day. I personally know at least 50 different people who have either moved into or out of the city proper over the last five years, including me.

I will agree that taking a straight up yearly pop vs. deaths is a way to compare, but it ignores that over a year in Afghanistan, many more people than the number there serve tours. Throughout the year, deployments end and begin. We might have twice as many deployments in Afghanistan as we have units there, in any given year.

And you ignore that over course of a year the population of Chicago undergoes a large shift as well.

I also gave the number by tripling the total troop number (instead of 68,000, I calculated using 200,000) and underestimated Chicago's population by a quarter million without taking any of the fluctuation in chicago into account. Serving in Afghanistan was still significantly more dangerous after I scewed the data in favor of serving in Afghanistan's favor by a wide margin.
 
Let me know when you get your head around the fact that you are trying to compare different units of measurement, like comparing weight and volume.

X deaths per deployment vs. X deaths per year per cap

That's:

chance of dying on deployment vs. chance of dying living in Chicago

Notice, the first unit does not include time, the second unit does.

you are assuming a static, unchanging population, which is not the case. That actual individuals involved in the population fluctuate by hundreds of thousands as people move into and out of the city constantly

That's a good point and it complicates the comparison.


I think we have a choice of two best methods of comparison.

1. (your method)
A straight comparison of deaths per year per cap. This ignores the number of deployments (the number of units actually serving), and so removes the individual risk (which we are concerned with).

2. (another method)
Deaths per deployment over ten years vs. deaths per resident over ten years. This ignores the influx and outflux (is that a word?) regarding residents in Chicago.


If, at any given time, the death rate stays constant at about 100 people per 100,000 deployed, then that is the rate. Just like the odds of being murdered in Chicago stays constant.

But your unit (the one used in your method of comparison) is not deaths per deployment, it's deaths per cap in country. It ignores that 2 or more soldiers might serve during the year for each year-long resident represented.
 
Last edited:
thinks his new research findings suggest that the definition of meritocracy used by white people is far more fluid than many would admit

lots of "ifs" there
 
1. (your method)
A straight comparison of deaths per year per cap. This ignores the number of deployments (the number of units actually serving), and so removes the individual risk (which we are concerned with).

That's not what I did, though. Look back at what I did.

I basically took the total number of people serving at any given time, multiplied that by about 3, then figured out the rate. I left Chicago's population static.
 
That's not what I did, though. Look back at what I did.

I basically took the total number of people serving at any given time, multiplied that by about 3, then figured out the rate. I left Chicago's population static.

That's a reasonable jury rig in attempt to bring different units into comparison. It's still comparing apples and oranges via an estimation of a nonsensical coefficient (the conversion of units in country to deployments, minus proper unit of measure reconciliation).

I think I'd prefer total number of deaths per deployment (this eliminates temporal variation and creates a 10 year time scale) vs. deaths over 10 years per cap (which maintains the 10 year period, creating an average for each side of the equation). Yes, it ignores the influx and outflux of residents in Chicago, but there is no way to reconcile that with the different units of comparison (deployment vs. residency).

Ultimately, we're basically trying to compare weight and volume (for example) and we don't have a coefficient that will render the equation meaningful to include reconciling units.
 
Last edited:
That's a reasonable jury rig in attempt to bring different units into comparison. It's still comparing apples and oranges via an estimation of a nonsensical coefficient.

I think I'd prefer total number of deaths per deployment (this eliminates temporal variation and creates a 10 year time scale) vs. deaths over 10 years per cap (which maintains the 10 year period, creating an average for each side of the equation). Yes, it ignores the influx and outflux of residents in Chicago, but there is no way to reconcile that with the different units of comparison (deployment vs. residency).

When discussing risk posed, my approach doesn't ignore any variable that alters the rates (well, it still ignores the fluctuations in Chicago, but it's a much lower number in a single year period, thus affecting the totals less). Yours does, and it's a significant alteration making the comparison grossly inaccurate. Over ten years, we're talking millions of people in Chicago that are not being counted. Millions. That's going to significantly affect the numbers.

And since the comparison is risk posed RIGHT NOW for each scenario, versus over time, my approach is significantly better.
 
When discussing risk posed, my approach doesn't ignore any variable that alters the rates (well, it still ignores the fluctuations in Chicago, but it's a much lower number in a single year period, thus affecting the totals less). Yours does, and it's a significant alteration making the comparison grossly inaccurate. Over ten years, we're talking millions of people in Chicago that are not being counted. Millions. That's going to significantly affect the numbers.

I suppose you manage to arrive at deaths per deployment (via coefficient of unknown validity) per year vs. deaths per year. I would still prefer deaths per deployment total vs. deaths per same time period.

You leave out the yearly variation of deaths in Afghanistan. That is significant. Probably just as significant as ignoring the influx and outflux of residents in Chicago, given the variation over the years.

Of course, you could simply limit your analysis to "this year" and then only have the problem of an unknown number of deployments which you estimate.

So, using your method:

200,000 deployments (roughly, and probably an overestimate) / X deaths this year vs. 2.5m residents / X deaths this year.

I suppose that's reasonable if not entirely proper and limited to just this year. That Chicago has so many residents will probably keep the numbers fairly far apart.

Does Chicago have the highest murder per cap rate? Could another city bring the numbers closer? Should we include non-murder deaths (manslaughter, vehicular homocide, etc) since we are including all troop deaths, combat and otherwise? Even if we isolated combat deaths, we should still probably include manslaughter.
 
Last edited:
When discussing risk posed, my approach doesn't ignore any variable that alters the rates (well, it still ignores the fluctuations in Chicago, but it's a much lower number in a single year period, thus affecting the totals less). Yours does, and it's a significant alteration making the comparison grossly inaccurate. Over ten years, we're talking millions of people in Chicago that are not being counted. Millions. That's going to significantly affect the numbers.

And since the comparison is risk posed RIGHT NOW for each scenario, versus over time, my approach is significantly better.

Also, if we are doing "killed in Afghanistan vs. killed in Chicago", then we should include all people killed in Chicago and not just murders. I know, the person specified murder but let's try to be more realistic anyway, if we're interested in which is more "dangerous" (which, iirc, was your claim). That means car accidents, etc, if your claim is in regard to "danger" and not just "combat vs. being murdered".
 
Last edited:
I suppose you manage to arrive at deaths per deployment (via coefficient of unknown validity) per year vs. deaths per year. I would still prefer deaths per deployment total vs. deaths per same time period.

You leave out the yearly variation of deaths in Afghanistan. That is significant. Probably just as significant as ignoring the influx and outflux of residents in Chicago, given the variation over the years.

Of course, you could simply limit your analysis to "this year" and then only have the problem of an unknown number of deployments which you estimate.

So, using your method:

200,000 deployments (roughly, and probably an overestimate) / X deaths this year vs. 2.5m residents / X deaths this year.

I suppose that's reasonable if not entirely proper and limited to just this year. That Chicago has so many residents will proably keep the numbers fairly far apart.

Actually, the best analysis for a risk comparison would be the average number of deaths per day compared to the average number of people per day, since the total population remains constant, albeit constantly in flux. Your risk is associated with being placed at risk at the moment you are at risk, so it's the same for everyone deployed at any given time.

We are 227 days into the year, and there have been 60 troops KIA in Afghanistan, for an average of about 0.26 troops KIA per day. In Chicago, there have been 258 murders in 227 days, for an average of about 1.13 murders per day in Chicago.

There is an average of 63,000 troops in Afghanistan on any given day, of which 0.26 of them die each day. That is a rate of about 0.41 deaths per 100,000 troops in Afghanistan each day. There is an average of 2.7 million people living in Chicago on any given day, for a rate of about 0.042 murdered Chicagoans per 100,000 each day.

That means you are ten times more likely to be killed today if you are serving in Afghanistan than if you are living in Chicago.
 
Also, if we are doing "killed in Afghanistan vs. killed in Chicago", then we should include all people killed in Chicago and not just murders. I know, the person specified murder but let's try to be more realistic anyway, if we're interested in which is more "dangerous" (which, iirc, was your claim). That means car accidents, etc, if your claim is in regard to "danger" and not just "combat vs. being murdered".

I was trying to be beneficial to his argument, but if you want to do that, let's do it. Hell, I was generously using "serving" as synonymous with "in combat" before, but hey, if you want to skew it further in my favor, let's rock. Of course, this means we should probably should include all long-term, debilitating combat related casualties in Afghanistan as well, including PTSD, though, since those pose great dangers as well. And you know what, **** it, let's include EVERYONE who gets killed, maimed or otherwise ****ed in afghanistan through combat-related stuff.
 
Not true. What are there, 68,000 or so US troop in Afghanistan? Let's be generous and call it 200,000 people who have served in Afghanistan this year (almost three times as many than what is actually there). Of those, 84 have died thus far this year.

That 42 per 100,000 using the incredibly over inflated total of 200,000.

there are 2.4 million people who live in Chicago. Millions more are in Chicago each day, but we'll be generous and just talk about people who live in Chicago. There have been 258 murders. That's about 11 people per hundred thousand. Using those unrealistic and totally skewed in favor of your claim numbers, you'd still be 4 times more likely to die in Afghanistan.


If we use the more realistic 68,000 number, the death rate in Afghanistan jumps up to about 123 per 100,000. If we use the more realistic number of 3 million people in Chicago at any given time, the rate here drops to 8.6.

If we decide to use "killed in action", that's 60 instead of 84, and the rate becomes 88 per 100,000.

No matter how you slice it, you're 10 times more likely to die in combat in Afghanistan than you are to be murdered in Chicago.

As I said, there's a lot of bull**** spewed about Chicago. Almost none of it is based in reality.

slow your roll Tuck...it was a joke.
 
It's way more dangerous to serve in Afghanistan than it is to live in Chicago.

If that's the point you want to make, then you need to include all killings in Chicago, murder and otherwise. Just like you did with Afghanistan.
 
Last edited:
Tucker, I say we kick his ass for wasting our ****ing time. ;) He trolled us.

hey..at least I didn't rick-roll you

but seriously, I think I'd rather take my chances in Afghanistan than in some parts of Chicago.
 
You got a bet. You get to choose the 'poor Asian', I get to pick which American.
Just wondering- what about Jews? Would you expect a Jew to get higher test scores?

The simple fact is this ....when it comes to intellect ...the Asians ...and in particular the Han Chinese ..are the only group that could claim superiority.
How many times have they demonstrated this .....they beat Americans kids in the class room .....with the increased dis-advantage of having to master a second language.
Imagine if Americans were to compete with Asians ....in their own language.

They are not just a little better ....they are miles above Americans intellectually ...which is why I say ...they are the only group that can truly claim superiority!
 
Back
Top Bottom