Brian wrote:The burden is on the anti-gay folks to tell me why it is wrong (it always comes down to sanctity and disgust, not harm or anything). If you want to regulate private behavior, the public good has to be compelling and lead to greater flourishing in the long run than that which you are curtailing.
Did God tell you that rule or did you just pull it out of your *ss?
citation to authority, please wrote:
Brian wrote:The burden is on the anti-gay folks to tell me why it is wrong (it always comes down to sanctity and disgust, not harm or anything). If you want to regulate private behavior, the public good has to be compelling and lead to greater flourishing in the long run than that which you are curtailing.Did God tell you that rule or did you just pull it out of your *ss?
WE pull all our morality out of our asses withing the context of some basic wiring:
http://philosophynow.org/issues/82/Morality_is_a_Culturally_Conditioned_Responsehttp://www.moralfoundations.org/Dennis Reynolds 2.0 wrote:
Because it's not you moron. Here is how the knockout game goes for a group of african americans "Hey, I'm bored, let's go punch someone". Never "let's go punch a white person". Just person.
24 carat bullshit.
Almost every memeber of my family has been a victim of black-on-white assault. It happened in the "white" part of town, where these guys travelled, explicitly to assault white people. One guy who decked me actually got caught by the police 30 seconds later, and the cops (black women) let him go. I had to beg the lone white cop there to drive me around the corner.
DR2.0 you are a straight up apologist, never admit to the possibility that, "yes, it is possible for young black men to target white people in some instances". You ALWAYS play the victim card. There are no shades of culpability. It is always Black people = Innocent, White People = Victimizers.
You are like some many other semi-educated black people in the US now - you cannot admit, even once, that perhaps there is a level of criminality in some black communities that needs to be addressed. There is this bizarre code of Omerta, "Black people need to take care of black peoples' problems" etc. It is all nonsense and merely reinforces the disdain for dialogue with people like you that the rest of the population has.
Anecdote for anecdote, I was pulled over twice in HS with my black track team friends in the car and had a Georgia cop ask me what I was doing hanging out with a bunch of n**gers and made us all get out and spread 'em. Pulled over with white Cross Country teammates with a car full of beers (but me a sober driver) on more than one occasion to get an easy little warning and pour out the beer.
Anyone who thinks that cops don't profile black people and simply pay more attention to what they are doing is out of their minds. There really isn't all that much cross racial crime (and far less crime than people think there is).
troofiness wrote:
[quote]:
There is this bizarre code of Omerta, "Black people need to take care of black peoples' problems" etc.
True, except of course for the epidemic of fatherless children, refusal to be educated (for fear of acting white) and refusal to raise children properly.
That's for tax payers to pay for and government to provide.....without holding the people who benefit from it to any accountability or responsibility. That would be racist.
Brian wrote:
Anecdote for anecdote, I was pulled over twice in HS with my black track team friends in the car and had a Georgia cop ask me what I was doing hanging out with a bunch of n**gers and made us all get out and spread 'em. Pulled over with white Cross Country teammates with a car full of beers (but me a sober driver) on more than one occasion to get an easy little warning and pour out the beer.
Anyone who thinks that cops don't profile black people and simply pay more attention to what they are doing is out of their minds. There really isn't all that much cross racial crime (and far less crime than people think there is).
They do.
The rates of criminality in black populations are are 3-5x higher per capita than the general population. e.g. 50% of murders are committed by black men yet they are are 6% of the population.
Police are also more likely to pull over men than women. They are profiling based on gender. This makes sense, and nobody questions this practice.
In both cases - men/women, black/other - the police make these judgements based on past experience and mountains of DATA. If this were not the case, black would account for 12% of murders. This was possibly the case 50-60 years ago.
But regardless, two wrongs make a right? That makes is ok to assault white people?
I don't really care what pressures they face if it means I have to be subject to assault, and fear for my person around these people.
Children prefer people who look like their caregivers. An easy explanation of this preference.
Brian is correct. If you're gunna mandate something is "wrong" explain and show how or stfu.Do you really need a citation for that?
Brian wrote:
citation to authority, please wrote:Did God tell you that rule or did you just pull it out of your *ss?
WE pull all our morality out of our asses withing the context of some basic wiring:
http://philosophynow.org/issues/82/Morality_is_a_Culturally_Conditioned_Responsehttp://www.moralfoundations.org/
Well, this thread went downhill quickly. How did I know you fools were going to bring up the 'knockout game', or black crime rate being sky high, as if those things pertain in any way to 15 month old babies and why they chose playmates that look like them.
But most black people aren't criminals. In no other area do we think individuals should be penalized for group data, no matter how true. Lets say 1% of whites and 4% of blacks are criminals - that is interesting at the population level, but tells me very little about how I should treat any black person. Isn't that sort of the point of liberty, afterall? Black people are scrutinize out of proportion to their actual criminality rate and the prophesy self-fulfills (I can tell you, I was up to many youthful shenanigans that involved police, alchol, profanity from me, and I was never arrested or anything).
Arrested data is self-fulfulling - blacks have always been special targets of law-enforcement scrutiny (you can see this in newspapers from the 1850s). I don't doubt a population difference in crime, but I do doubt this means black people in general should get special scrutiny since most people of any race aren't criminals and the idea that black crime has much to do with racial animus is patently absurd. The depressing fact is that most black crime has black victims (as one would suspect when you get what crime is).
Good point about men being profiled and I do indeed think there is something wrong with it. Men 7 times mroe likely than women to get a traffic citation after a stop (and more likely to be examined for all manner of crimes). And men get much longer sentences for the same crimes.
And the "knockout game" is a bogus trend story manufactured by demogogues. The conservative version of "the wage gap" - designed to foster the resentment of ideologues.
If you guys were really interested in this stuff and not some sort of axe grinding, you could just read Bloom's book. The facts don't lend themselves to the axe-grinding rigidity of either the left or the right (as they rarely do).
The more interesting studies (and study designs) have to do with nascent notions of fairness, reward, and punishment in babies.
Toast Burn wrote:
Bad Wigins wrote:Now wait a minute. All they found was that among a group of mostly white kids, most of them preferred to play with the researcher who gave extra toys to white kids. At most they're taking advantage of someone else's racial bias.
Did you ever notice every "study" seems set up to show whites are biased? And did you notice most of you are so brainwashed with self-hate you go right along with it? Did you ever notice that statements like the previous illicit a knee-jerk, self-hate reaction? A reaction that makes you want to jump up and prove you're not racist? Did you notice that other races can engage in racist behavior toward whites and it's not called racism? Like black "youths" attacking and / or murdering whites and "officials" are always quick to tell us that race wasn't an element in said crimes. Wake up. People naturally stick up for their own. Except sissy whites.
Confused rhetoric but I see what you're about. One of those racists who poses as a defender against "reverse-racism." You're just as racialist and full of shit as the study authors.
Here's the truth: little children don't have any clue what a "white" or an "Asian" is because there is no such thing. Half the world's people are Asian and many of them are just as fair-skinned as Europeans. It wasn't until I was 8 years old that I found out my Indian friend wasn't really "black."
Children will ostracize any outlying minority, but that's merely because they like to be mean. If there's only one blond kid, or one kid with an unpopular lunchbox, or a kid who walks funny, or can't whistle, the other kids will let them have it without mercy for days on end. If there are no obvious differences, one is invented and randomly assigned to someone. None of it has anything to do with racial preference. Kids are not racially conscious until they're taught to be.
The link is for the Mail. Not to be taken seriously.
Bad Wiggins,
Babies, do show fear heightened responses to people of different races at a very early age (and the effect is size is quite large with men, not so much women). And not to other babies, just to adults (something the conservative axe grinders leave out - babies are fine with babies of other races). Why do people asssume that the author's of studies have a preferred outcome and it is bias that motivates it? Bloom, who is involved in some of these investigations, is just a typical mushy liberal like the rest of us, but a realist one without an axe to grind.
troofiness wrote:
You are like some many other semi-educated black people in the US now - you cannot admit, even once, that perhaps there is a level of criminality in some black communities that needs to be addressed.
"Criminality" comes from circumstance, not color. It's what racists like you don't realize. You also fail to realize that the institutionalized racism inherint to this countrys founding has made it very difficult for African-Americans to find themselves in good circumstances.
Do I want circumstances to change for us? Damn right, I work for it every damn day. People like you sure as hell don't make it easy.
For those too dim or lazy to read, Paul Bloom discusses the baby research on Bloggingheads:
For those too dim or lazy to read, Paul Bloom discusses the baby research on Bloggingheads:
For those too dim or lazy to read, Paul Bloom discusses the baby research on Bloggingheads:
For those too dim or lazy to read, Paul Bloom discusses the baby research on Bloggingheads:
Brian wrote:
But most black people aren't criminals. In no other area do we think individuals should be penalized for group data, no matter how true. Lets say 1% of whites and 4% of blacks are criminals - that is interesting at the population level, but tells me very little about how I should treat any black person. Isn't that sort of the point of liberty, afterall? Black people are scrutinize out of proportion to their actual criminality rate and the prophesy self-fulfills (I can tell you, I was up to many youthful shenanigans that involved police, alchol, profanity from me, and I was never arrested or anything).
Arrested data is self-fulfulling - blacks have always been special targets of law-enforcement scrutiny (you can see this in newspapers from the 1850s). I don't doubt a population difference in crime, but I do doubt this means black people in general should get special scrutiny since most people of any race aren't criminals and the idea that black crime has much to do with racial animus is patently absurd. The depressing fact is that most black crime has black victims (as one would suspect when you get what crime is).
Do the math. They are not arresting black women in any great numbers. They are not arresting elderly black men in any great numbers. They are arresting the 3% of the population that commits 50% of all crimes in the US - young black men.
Divide it further - only the poor ones, as distinguished by their accents and manner of dress. So 1.5% of the population commits 50% of all crimes in the US. This is a level of criminality that is 35x greater than the general population. And they are easily identifiable. In fact they celebrate this recognition. So if you are in law enforcement, and your mandate is to stop crime, this is the population you target, with young hispanic men coming in 2nd.
You cannot credibly claim that because this group is targeted, they therefore resort to crime. Or that they are no more criminal than the rest of the population. You would have us believe that the 5000 murders committed by this group are no more than the rest of the population? That elderly asian men are just as likely to murder, but don't get caught because they are not arrested? Are you serious?
At 35x, the murder rate within the population of poor young black men is 175/100k, or more violent than any Central American toilet. so that is what police forces in the US have to deal with.
We can argue as to why this cohort is so criminal. But that doesn't change the fact that this group - poor young black men - are very dangerous.