6,867 Forum Posts by "SadisticMonkey"
At 12/6/14 06:20 PM, Warforger wrote: I guess whether or not they were economically better is irrelevant to determining if people were happier.
And I guess that would be irrelevant to the point i was making.
Look back to the start of the argument or don't bother commenting at all.
It isn't?
Not if the adults assume that children weren't actually children.
Though a better analogy would be an adult using sharp knife in a room full of children, and the adult gets removed from the room by 'pro-children' adults, and the children are left behind with the knife and kill each other.
Is that why Africa is one of the richest continents in the world?
Africa is poor because the Europeans left. Undeniably richer than before they came though. Notice how the more colonized a country was the wealthier it became e.g. South Africa.
Also notice when Europeans go to a completely unindustrialized country and actually stick around that it becomes as wealthy or wealthier than Europe? Like America, Australia, canada, new zealand...
But Rhodesia, which was one of the wealtheist african countries, has been going down the shitter ever since the Europeans left.
And was there something wrong with hunter-gatherers? Because Ben Franklin thought that the lifestyle of the Native Americans was better than the Colonial one and it arguably is.
Christ almighty, I didn't say it was better. Don't reply to comments without looking at the context ffs.
At 12/6/14 06:05 PM, coaliscool42 wrote: Thats not the point. Like today, the majority of minorities have been on forced to work lesser jobs that pay less to make a living. It is harder to find good jobs.
yes, it is the point because your statement lacks context. Most people were earning relatively little in those days compared to today so its a poor explanation for much.
I said that about the people who were denied opportunities. Not the whole race.
Black people denied opportunities have no option but to rape women. Yeah, that's much better.
So what your saying is if blacks were not forced come to America in the 1800s there would be no diffrence?
You said that colonization of africa is responsible for racism in america, and I'm saying the two have nothing to do with each other.
you know why racism against blacks is associated with southerns?
Because that's where most black people live.
Do you also think that if slavery never happened 14% of Americans would be black? Source.
???
Would you advocate killing every black person in Africa so richer whites could live there? Do you think it is okay what happened to Native Americans and Aboriginals? After all North American countries have it pretty good right because of the genocides.
God you're an idiot. Seriously, you can't even remember what my point was that you're arguing against. We were discussing why black people are poorer, you blamed colonization and I pointed out that colonization made them wealthier. I said:
And colonization has made Africa and its populations much wealthier than it/they ever would have been even if you oppose it for non-economic reasons."
So I wasn't making a value judgement at all, i was simply pointing out that their lack of wealth is not because of colonization, not that colonization is necessarily a good thing.
Further more, all blacks/aborigines/natives were not killed during colonization. Those who fought against colonial rule were killed, sure, but with a small number of exceptions it was not wholesale genocide. The population were largely employed in agriculture, mining etc. because it would have made no sense to kill huge numbers of people for no reason. A number of african populations were enslaved, though this was usually only in areas where slavery already existed.
You're also clinging to this archaic 'noble savage', when in reality its been strongly established that most native populations were constantly fighting each other for control of land and resources. Again, not making judgement on whether or not colonization should have occurred, just pointing out how your understanding of it is complete nonsense.
Again do you argue the pillaging and forced labor of Congolese for the benefit of a "better economy" was a good thing? I would argue today that the Congo is worse off today than it worse 600 years ago when settlements began.
Again, I was not arguing that colonization was good/bad, I'm saying that the problems experienced after colonization were largely down to the nature of the Congolese themselves, not the malicious actions of european settlers.
The Congo is naturally the richest country in the world with its resources worth 24 trillion along. The citizens are among the poorest in the world. Source 1Source 2Source 3Source 4.
Sure. But these resources were largely worth squat to the congolese before colonization, because they couldn't exploit many of these resources at all except perhaps surface metals and gems, and even then they couldn't trade them with other countries for consumer goods. It was only after colonization that these resources actually held real economic value, and now the peace-loving congolese are slaughtering each other wholesale for the control of these resources. So yes, congo would have probably been better before colonization, but not because of the poor treatment of he congolese by the Europeans.
And I'm talking about European colonization. If the europeans didn't colonize the rest of africa the muslims probably would have, and thigns would have been unspeakably worse.
Its all based on luck. As I said, the Congo is theoretically the richest country in the world. They just chose not to exploit it.
They didn't "choose" not to exploit it.
So your saying the French made Haiti worse off? You said that they only make countries wealthier.
Wealthier than it would have been. But the dominican republic got european economic development AND genetic material, whereas most haitians are not mixed-race.
Hmmmm... So your saying because Rhodesia was so great it became the 'bread basket of Africa'.
After all, its not like Rhodesia had a civil war and eventually became Rwanda where a mass genocide took place that killed millions. If Rhodesia was so great why did this happen.
Christ almighty are you just dumb or are you being deliberately obtuse.
Please try and understand.
You said that europe is richer because of agriculture. I say its because of africans, because when europeans move to africa they create a hugely productive agricultural industry which was something you said that only europe was suited for.
And no, rhodesia did not become rwanda you ignorant fool.
You know what would have happened if the Europeans didn't colonize Rhodesian and Rwanda? Millions wouldn't have died and suffered under Europeans.
It wouldn't have happened, sure, but it wasn't because of the malice of europeans that it occurred. Europeans merely (and inadvertently) handed them the means to do so in providing them with technology and a centralized system of government.
That the Europeans cared nothing more about exploitation of locals to get what they want.
Again, this had NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT I SAID.
Do you really think this thread and this argument would have taken place if 'blacks didn't face racism'.
Black people claiming that racism is the source of the racial achievement gap does not prove that it is true.
I have covered why this happens. Blacks are often denied opportunities causing many blacks to turn to crime.
Blacks commit more violent crime even when you control for income, wealth and employment, and a lack of success is no excuse for violence. That's racist.
People are racist. They in turn deny blacks opportunities, they become unsuccessful.
You ignored my point of segregation and just said the same old thing.
Are you saying during segregation blacks were not denied opportunities?
I just explained that by many metrics blacks were doing better during segregation.
You said colleges weren't treating applicates equally. I explained why, I don't advocate it though.
So, this would be an example of unfair privilege being extended to blacks. One of many which challenge this notion of black people being oppressed by whites.
At 12/5/14 11:37 AM, Camarohusky wrote: First off, don't argue with SadisticMonkey about racism. He wholeheartedly believes black people are the cause of all of the world's problems.
No i don't. Blacks and progressives etc. actually literalyl do think all the world's problems are caused by white people and I explain how they're not.
Second, you're having a difficult time framing the issue. You're trying to talk about white privilege without actually discussing it. I don't blame you as the term white privilege tends to bring out the dumb who cannot understand any concept more difficult than 1+1=2, as well as quick knee jerk reactions from many others. However, you cannot have an actual discussion of race in this country without talking about it.
White privilege is unfalsifiable garbage used to rationalize the failure of civil rights in achieving racial equality. People who speak about white privilege act as though its existence as a hypothesis proves its validity and that people disagreeing with it as an accurate explanation of reality proves that they are racist.
Also, the idiotic progressive idea of wanting a 'discussion of race'. A discussion involves two sides. Progressives just want to browbeat white people into submission and prevent them from defending themselves or having a dissenting opinion. Some discussion.
What white privilege means is that life is hard, but whtie people have numerous benefits all along the way in this country. White people do not have to worry about racial profiling.
The black/white violent crime ratio is approximately the male/female violent crime ratio in america. Men undeniably receive more police attention than women because of their much greater likelihood of committing crimes. Men also have a MUCH greater incarceration rate than women and receive longer sentences than women for the same crimes. And yet, if I were to discuss this issue as being an example of 'female privilege' progressives would have a fucking aneurism.
White people have easier social interactions with the majority of Americans (e.g. they rarely face the "let's cross the street to avoid these people" interaction).
Same thing as above in regards to men vs women. But I'm not sure how people crossing the road to avoid them (no evidence is ever provided to support this claim btw) is contributes to blacks' lower socio-economic outcomes in life unless you think they're a bunch of cry-babies who can't continue after such a brutal hurting of their feelings.
If anything I'd say IMO that blacks have easier social interactions. White people are more willing to make friends with them because having black friends is really cool and hip and shows how progressive and not racist you are. They are also less likely to verbally disagree with a black person about things, will let them get away with saying stuff they would criticize or mock white friends for saying and over-exaggerate the intelligence of their black friends.
White names are treated better in housing, hiring, and promotion.
This assumes that there are no aggregate differences in black and white behavior, which is not a reasonable assumption.
Black people are charged higher interest rates on home loans and yet they have the same default rate as whites. Which means that if they were charged the same interest rates as whites then they would have a greater default rate than whites. So this "discrimination" is a result of differences in black and white behavior, not some grand racist conspiracy.
White people aren't expected by many to have a broken family. The list goes on.
Wait, so the expectation of black people having a broken family is a source of black people's lower SE-outcomes, but the much greater likelihood of blacks coming from broken families itself ISN'T? Even though for all races that empirical data shows that children without fathers have much lower SE-outcomes?
What privilege means is that if a white person and a black person had the same exact life and made the same exact choices at the same exact times,
Unfalsifiable.
Also, whites and blacks on aggregate do not make the same decisions and so even if the white privilege hypothesis were true, it would only be marginal explanation for the black/white SE-gap.
At 12/4/14 08:57 PM, coaliscool42 wrote: Many Italians in Brooklyn were making 4$ a month working shitty unskilled labor jobs.
Compared to what though?
What a dumb analogy.
No, I said they were more likely because of external forces.
No, idiot, you literally said they "have no option".
A lot. Its the reason segregation happened, and racism against blacks exists today.
Wtf?
Before colonization, the Congo, held many tribes who were free to live happly in individual societys. During Belgian colonozation not so much.
I said economically better and you disprove this by pointing to a bunch of primitive tribes who lacked any kind of industrialization whatsoever?
In fact, the Congo had a bloody civil war in the 00s that killed 2.7-5.4 MILLION people. About the population of Norway.
So yeah, that supposedly idyllic pre-colonial life was existent because of a lack of technology and a lack of centralized state which which to control the country. Not really Europeans fault except in the same sense as it being an adults fault if a child hurts themselves with a dangerous toy given to them by the adult.
Yeah, I agree. It's not like Europeans were severely advantaged because of good agriculture, surplus, and sea ports.
</sarcasm>
So the differences between European and African environments were enough to mean the difference between the most advanced civilization in history and a lack of civilization altogether, but remarkably they were not different enough to provide any difference in selective pressures whatsoever (beyond the simply cosmetic). Nice logic.
The reason the Dominican Republic is better off than Haiti is because of a mountain range. Water flows off the mountain range to the Dominican Republic side and not to Haiti therefore creating good farming for one side. The other side not so much.
yes I'm sure it has nothing to do with the european admixture of the majority of the population. Funny how Europeans can go to any country in the world, even those without good conditions for farming, and make it wealthier.
This lead Haiti to become the poor nation it is today because of its bad luck in placement. Society are based on luck.
before european settlement, rhodesia was an undeveloped region populated largely by hunter-gather tribes. After European settlement, Rhodesia became known as the 'bread basket of africa' due to its agricultural output.
To bring up the Congo again, many Africans were mutilated for not picking crops fast enough by the belgians (not the Congolese).
What does that have to do with what I just said?
Are you saying it has no effect today? It is pretty much the absolute basis of racism against African Americans today.
Do you have any proof that 'racism' (whatever the heck that even means) is a serious problem faced by most blacks in america and that it is the source of their problems?
The vast majority of interracial violent crime is committed by black people against whites. Wow, whites really are awful to blacks.
People are racist. They in turn deny blacks opportunities, they become unsuccessful.
This didn't address my points. What does this have to do with segregation.
You know why that is? Racism. Colleges under value disadvantaged blacks and assume they can't be successful. They have conformation basis by few blacks applying.
People get mad because few blacks apply. They then choose to accept under qualified because it shows they value "diversity".
They assume they can't be successful because they have lower grades and other indicators of success, and so you're getting upset at colleges treating applicants equally without concern for race.
At 12/4/14 07:18 PM, coaliscool42 wrote: Do you think there could be a reason for this. The white European immigrants who came to America in the early 1900s were some of the poorest people in America for a long time. They were judged and denied opportunities because of this.
Would Al Capone have turned to crime if he was born into an upper middle-class family? Probably not.
Capone actually came from a good, albeit, lower-class, family. Capone became a criminal for wealth and power.
Can you name a country where a similar amount of blacks live compared to the general population? Can you also give me data on the crime committed by the blacks?
I never said what they do is justified. I said they were more likely to do said things because of the way they grew up/live. I am not saying committing crime is okay.
You're saying they have no option but to rape. Why?
Yeah, i'm sure Africa being colonized was "their fault".
What on earth does that have to do with modern-day african americans?
And colonization has made Africa and its populations much wealthier than it/they ever would have been even if you oppose it for non-economic reasons.
Its not like the people who colonized Africa were better off because of luck.
yes they were able to conquer nearly the entire planet due to 'luck'.
I'm sure Africans being sold into slavery was "their fault".
They were sold into slavery by Africans so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.
They should have just invented guns to shoot back.
Yes god came down from heaven and gave europeans their advanced technology.
I'm sure being forcefully taken to America was by choice. Segregation was their fault.
Blaming slavery for the current conditions faced by african-americans is dumb and without logical foundation.
As for segregation: Compared with today, black had lower illegitimacy, lower incarceration and higher business ownership. You can oppose segregation but I'm not sure how it could possibly be used to explain the current situation of African-americans.
Blacks are 33% less likely to get a job interview if they have a enthinicly black name. Keep in mind white names (with the same qualifications on resumes) were more likely to get an interview.
Black people are more likely to get into top colleges than other races with the same qualifications. But I'm sure this is actually secrectly part of the racist conspiracy, somehow.
At 11/30/14 12:31 AM, coaliscool42 wrote: Minority of minority turns to crime ----> Minority as a whole is judged ----> Said Minority is denied opprutunities ----> Said people cause crime because they have no other option.
1. Blacks commit more crime than other races per captia even when you control for income, employment and education. Black crime rates are higher in america than those of many people in other countries who are much poorer.
2. Poor black males commit the highest rate of forceful rape in america per capita, are you saying that their relative lack of wealth/opportunity means they have "no option" but to rape women? Because that's kind of disturbing and misogynistic to me.
3. To the extent that blacks have less opportunity, its largely due to their own choices such as committing higher rates of crime, having children outside of marriage etc. Their relative lack of wealth causes white people to offer more opportunities to blacks because they feel sorry for black people
Of course the poor state of race relations in America is not single-handedly down to Al Sharpton (or anyone else for that matter), but his kind of rhetoric is extremely toxic and the more influence people such as himself have the worse the racial situation will become.
A lot of anti-white progressives would otherwise be sympathetic to this were it not for their hatred of white people and their belief that white people are to blame for everything bad that happens to minorities. So to illustrate the toxicity of people like Sharpton, in addition to the violently tribalistic mindset of many black people, let us look at the Crown Heights race riots:
On Monday 8/19/91 a station wagon driven by Yosef Lifsh hit another car and bounced onto the sidewalk at 8:21 p.m. The station wagon was part of a 3-car motorcade carrying the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Menachem Schneerson. The Rebbe was in a different car. The station wagon struck two black children, 7-year-old cousins, Gavin and Angela Cato, who were on the sidewalk. Lifsh immediately got out of his car and tried to help the children, but the gathering crowd started to attack him.
Within minutes, an ambulance from the Hasidic-run ambulance service and two from the city's Emergency Medical Service arrived. The gathering crowd became more unruly. The police who showed up radioed for backup, reporting the station wagon’s driver and passengers were being assaulted. Police officer Nona Capace ordered the Hasidic ambulance to remove the battered Yosef Lifsh and his passenger from the scene.
The injured children went by separate city ambulances to Kings County Hospital. Tragically, Gavin Cato was pronounced dead; his cousin survived.
A false rumor began to spread that the Hasidic ambulance crew had ignored the dying black child in favor of treating the Jewish men. This falsehood was later used by Al Sharpton to incite the crowd.
Other rumors sprang up; some said Lifsh was intoxicated (breath alcohol test administered by the police proved his sobriety). More falsehoods circulated; Lifsh did not have a valid driver's license; he went through a red light; the police prevented people including Gavin Cato's father, from assisting in the rescue.
Charles Price, an area resident who had come to the scene of the accident, incited the masses with claims that, "The Jews get everything they want. They're killing our children." Price later pled guilty for inciting the crowd to murder Yankel Rosenbaum.
Ignited by the falsehoods, resentment exploded into violence. Groups of young black men threw rocks, bottles and debris at police, residents and homes. According to the New York Times, more than 250 neighborhood residents went on a rampage that first night, mostly black teenagers, many of whom were shouting "Jews! Jews! Jews!"
Three hours after the tragic crash, 29-year-old Australian Jewish scholar Yankel Rosenbaum was attacked by a gang of Black teens. He was stabbed four times. Cops quickly arrested Lemrick Nelson, who was identified by Rosenbaum as his attacker. Rosenbaum's wounds were not fatal; he was expected to recover. Mayor Dinkins visited Rosenbaum at the hospital. But Rosenbaum died at 2:30 a.m. Tuesday because the hospital staff missed one of his knife wounds. Despite some claims, Al Sharpton had nothing to do with the murder of Yankel Rosenbaum.
he next evening, according to the sworn testimony of Efraim Lipkind, a former Hasidic resident of Crown Heights, Sharpton started agitating the crowd.
“Then we had a famous man, Al Sharpton, who came down, and he said Tuesday night, kill the Jews, two times. I heard him, and he started to lead a charge across the street to Utica.”
With each passing hour the violence worsened. Jewish leaders began to desperately complain about the lack of protection to the authorities. They said the rioters were being allowed to rampage unchecked, too little force was being brought to bear, and too few arrests were being made. Area Jews felt the police were under orders by the City’s first black mayor to hold back, that the police were not allowed to fight against the black rioters, who continued to grow bolder in their anti-Semitic attacks as they sensed the appeasement.
New York City Mayor David Dinkins responded to the riot immediately by deploying 2,000 police officers and making a personal visit to the troubled neighborhood under a hail of rocks and epithets hurled at him by fellow blacks. Dinkins has spoken of his own mishandling of the riots, admitting he “screwed up Crown Heights.”
“I regret not saying to the police brass sooner whatever you guys are doing is not working.” It was then they altered their behavior and they were able to contain the ravaging young blacks who were attacking Jews … I will forever be accused of holding back the police and permitted blacks to attack Jews. However that did not happen; it is just inaccurate.”
In all, the street violence against the Crown Heights Jews lasted three days/four nights starting with the evening of the accident. On Thursday evening, the police finally restored order, although sporadic violence against Jews continued for weeks after the riot was contained.
Yankel Rosenbaum wasn't the only person murdered by the rioters. On September 5th, Italian-American Anthony Graziosi, was dragged out of his car, brutally beaten and stabbed to death because his full beard and dark clothing caused him to be mistaken for a Hasidic Jew. During the funeral of Gavin Cato on August 26th, Al Sharpton gave an anti-Semitic eulogy, which fueled the fires of hatred.
“The world will tell us he was killed by accident. Yes, it was a social accident. ... It's an accident to allow an apartheid ambulance service in the middle of Crown Heights. ... Talk about how Oppenheimer in South Africa sends diamonds straight to Tel Aviv and deals with the diamond merchants right here in Crown Heights. The issue is not anti-Semitism; the issue is apartheid. ... All we want to say is what Jesus said: If you offend one of these little ones, you got to pay for it. No compromise, no meetings, no kaffe klatsch, no skinnin' and grinnin'. Pay for your deeds."
Regarding the Mayor's call for peace, Sharpton pontificated:
"They don't want peace, they want quiet."
Sharpton and the lawyer representing the Cato family counseled them not to cooperate with authorities in the investigation and demanded a special prosecutor be named.
When Sharpton was asked about the violence, he justified it:
“We must not reprimand our children for outrage, when it is the outrage that was put in them by an oppressive system," he said.
The first Sabbath after the funeral Sharpton tried unsuccessfully to kick up tensions again by marching 400 protesters in front of the Lubavitch of Crown Heights, shouting “No Justice, No Peace." Sharpton called for the arrest of Lifsh, the driver of the station wagon. He stated this despite the fact that more than twenty similarly accidental vehicular deaths had occurred in Brooklyn since 1989 without a single arrest, several involving local Hasidim run down by blacks. The agitator’s pressure triggered Charles Hynes, the Brooklyn district attorney, to convene a grand jury.
At 12/4/14 05:38 PM, TNT wrote: I feel if they killed someone out of policy (i.e. choke hold), then they need to be faced criminally.
I feel that people shouldn't face criminal charges unless they actually break the law.
Garner only started to resist (correct me if I'm wrong) when the officers tried to place him under arrest.
???
That's the point, it's resisting arrest. Something which makes the police very worried for their safety and very suspicious of you.
Even if he was completely innocent (or at least believed himself to be), you never, ever resist arrest or you will be in for a bad time, which is completely fair enough too.
I'm not saying he deserved to die, but it wasn't the intention to kill him either.
At 12/1/14 01:40 PM, Light wrote: This is tragic, but considering that there hasn't been systematic discrimination by black police officers against white teenagers, it's a little disingenuous to say or imply that this is exactly the same.
There is not a single jot of evidence that police racial discrimination had anything to do with the incident. It's literally just 'white cop kills black kid' and progressives lose their minds. White kids have been killed for a lot less than attacking a police officer.
This should be obvious, but Michael Brown's death has garnered so much attention because it reflects a trend in American society in which black people are disproportionately targeted by cops
How dies it reflect a trend when its not a part of a trend itself?
Do police allow white kids to walk in the middle of the road? To get away with strong-arm robbery?
And it makes sense that black people would be targeted by police more considering they commit much more violent crime per capita than any other racial group.
Men are undeniably targeted by the police more than women but to claim that men as a sex are systematically oppressed by the police is to invite ridicule. And yet, the black/white violent crime ratio is roughly the same as the male/female violent crime ratio.
Stop police oppression of men!
and disproportionately have their civil rights violated—as well as their right to life in many cases.
Brown did not have his civil rights violated though.
There are millions of black mothers and fathers who believe this to be the case and actually instruct their kids in near-painstaking detail how they should interact with police officers so that they don't get shot and killed. Can you honestly say that this kind of conversation is common in the homes of white families?
How on earth would you know this? This is just emotional BS.
And they're doing a fucking atrocious job of it if that's the case. Brown's parents apparently left out the part where you shouldn't attack police officers.
And if I was a black person and believed that the cops/justice system had it in for me, I would be doing everything I could to stay out of trouble instead of, you know, actually committing more crime than any other race.
I'm not asking you to change your opinion right this instant, but I am asking you to empathize with black people all over the country who, by and large, feel unsafe whenever they have to interact with police officers.
Then they shouldn't attack police officers.
Not only are American police officers more likely to kill blacks when confronting them,
Since you're an hysterical idiot, let me do 3 seconds of research into the issue for you.
"As you can see, a person shot at by a police officer is more than twice as likely to be black as the average member of the general population. But, crucially, they are less likely to be black than the average violent shooter or the average person who shoots at the police.
http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/25/race-and-justice-much-more-than-you-wanted-to-know/
So blacks are actually less likely to get shot at than other races when you control for their rates of attacks on police.
they generally seem more likely to use lethal force against any civilian in the U.S. than police officers in other 1st world countries.
Criminals in other first world countries are less likely to be armed and less likely to attack police too. But hey, liberal logic time where we automatically assume causes for things so they fit in with our narrative.
There's a racial problem here that can be documented by empirical research, but there's also a larger problem with how police officers are trained to handle risky situations, resorting to lethal force all too often.
Mike Brown posed a lethal threat to Wilson and so its entirely acceptable that lethal force was used in return.
Those are both issues that must be addressed.
You accuse others of dismissing concerns casually, but the average 'justice for mike brown' protester does not give two shits about any dissenting viewpoint and will dismiss anyone possessing one a 'racist'. These being issues that require 'addressing' means 'white people need to be less racist' (whatever that actually means) and 'police have to stop using lethal force' (even though its often justified).
At 11/30/14 08:41 PM, Warforger wrote: It has nothing to do with the fact that black people are more likely to get convicted for drug charges even though white people are caught more often
No proof this is due to racism, and it's this kind of idiotic knee-jerk tribalistic reaction that is the problem in the first place.
or the fact that this isn't even the first incident in Ferguson where cops were being a bit brutally racist.
Excuse me? How exactly have the cops acted "brutally racist"?
At 11/26/14 10:35 AM, Feoric wrote: In this instance, who has the sense of entitlement? The employee, who needs money to live, or the employer, who is intentionally exploiting the labor force to cram wages down as low as it can possibly go to maximize profits?
Were employers of the past just like, less greedy or something?
At 11/27/14 01:03 AM, Camarohusky wrote: There were reasons in Zimmerman's case to bring it in. Largely to dispute his claim of self defense, as he had done dumb shit with people before indicating that he was he likely aggressor.
However, based on what we know about the Wilson case, very little, if anything at all is relevent to the legal matter at hand.
Given that people are disputing that Brown ever attacked Wilson in the first place, I think you're making an arbitrary distinction over what is and isn't relevant.
this is what progressives actually believe
At 11/26/14 11:11 PM, Feoric wrote: I don't think you actually have a point other than trolling, I was just saying that to be polite).
No you're the one who's trolling
Grow up.
At 11/26/14 08:18 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Anything that happened before that is not relevant in the least to the situation that ended with Brown shot to death.
funny how you guys weren't saying that when people brought up Zimmerman's past.
At 11/26/14 10:27 PM, Feoric wrote: which is a clear specific reference to the robbery Brown committed. Unless you're arguing that Michael Brown (and his actions leading up to his subsequent death)
Okay, so you admit that Brown wasn't some poor little oppressed black person who was scared of the evil racist white cops then?
is Representative for All Black People in the United States then no, you are making a different point in this post as opposed to your last one.
Black people commit more violent crime than any other race is america. I don't know about you, but if I thought that the cops/justice system had it in for me then I would be going out my way to not commit violent crimes. Instead of, you know, committing them more than anyone else.
Why do you think he was killed?
Self-defense, which is true even if you think that it was unnecessary for Wilson to kill him.
At 11/26/14 07:27 PM, Feoric wrote: Michael Brown was an asshole. You shouldn't be killed for being an asshole. Thrown in jail, yes, but not killed.
That's not what I said. I'm disputing the claim that black people in ferguson (or w/e) live in constant fear of the police because it is not congruent with how they behave.
And no, he wasn't killed for being an asshole.
At 11/26/14 12:18 PM, Feoric wrote: Ferguson is an environment in which citizens fear cops because the law permits them to kill with impunity, and this isn't the only area where people rightfully believe the system isn't adequately and fairly looking out for them and their community.
If you fear some people you don't go out of your way to antagonize or provoke them. If you think the police and justice system have it in for you you don't commit brazen violent crime in during the day in front of multiple witnesses and security cameras. At least not if you have an IQ above 50.
Undocumented "americans" are certainly too entitled
jesus christ progressives are fucking idiotic
yay, justice for mike brown!
http://fox2now.com/2014/11/25/natalie-dubose-talks-small-businesses-unrest-in-ferguson/
At 11/26/14 03:15 AM, LordJaric wrote:At 11/26/14 01:08 AM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: Now that the case is over, life should return to normal. Looting and setting fires to the city is only going to cause more problems.There will always be those handful of hooligans amongst the peaceful protesters that just want to cause trouble.
If it were really just a handful the police wouldn't be having such a hard time keeping things under control
At 11/21/14 11:41 PM, Feoric wrote:At 11/21/14 10:34 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: No really, what's the constitutional basis for these actions?I'm glad you asked!
wrong
At 11/21/14 09:29 PM, Feoric wrote:At 11/21/14 08:54 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: something called 'constitutional powers' comes to mind.You probably never intended to but you didn't answer my question. Care to try again, this time being more specific?
No really, what's the constitutional basis for these actions?
I know progressives consider things like the constitution archaic and probably also racist, but they kind of are the 'rules' of the government.
At 11/21/14 10:47 AM, Feoric wrote:At 11/21/14 07:46 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: lolCould you tell us which rules this EO are breaking?
something called 'constitutional powers' comes to mind.
At 11/21/14 05:55 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: It has much more to do with multibillion dollar multinational telecommunications corporations. See they have invested money everywhere in the form of Cell Phone Towers because they can make money everywhere. Contracting Halliburton to upgrade the sewage infrastructure in Sierra Leon Africa https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Freetown.jpg is not profitable until Obama and his regime is forced to create a guise to blow the shit out of it and ... "Americanize" it all.
Yeah, remember when a foreign multinational corporation came into Europe and provided its original sewerage system? Where would we be without that.
At 11/21/14 10:05 AM, AxTekk wrote: So, while some Muslims probably aren't interested in integration, being Muslim is a pretty poor predictor of not being interested in integration.
We're talking about the muslims who become terrorists, which you claim is because they are not being integrated. The fact that many muslims are being integrated refutes your own argument, because if (allegedly) most muslims can be integrated then the ones who aren't are probably not itnerested in it.
Sorry, I missed the part where Muslims raped "thousands" of children, can you give me some statistics?
sad when I know more about your country than you do
If they had been willing to be good friends and neighbours with the Muslims who largely just wanted to get on with their lives then we might not still have all white and all brown neighbourhoods in places like Bradford.
The reasons there are racially divided neighborhoods is because muslims have made livign around them unbearable and the white people move away.
If you look at areas where the white locals were willing to look past their new neighbours' skin and religion (like Watford and Harrow) then you'll see integrated communities.
"integrated communities" are where muslims gang rape children. Nice one, dickhead.
So, evidently Muslims can and do integrate where there is the opportunity to. However, in places like Bradford there is still a lot of widespread racism towards Pakistantis/ Bangladeshis (not just Muslims) and people like the EDL/ BNP who don't have much presence elsewhere have a lot of local support. Clearly it's going to be very hard for Muslims who want to integrate in these places to integrate whilst their white counterparts are calling for repatriation programs.
Then muslims shouldn't fucking live there. The muslims are being a bunch of cry babies and are being treated far better than westerners are in their homelands.
It's truly bizarre that the west is so oppressive to muslims and yet they'll do everything they can to move there....
If I was to give a concise definition of openness I'd call it a willingness to look past other people's irrelevant differences and to instigate/ reciprocate integration.
Funny how no other groups become fucking TERRORISTS over teh exact same treatment.
(except for very few areas of London, where they also didn't integrate).
yeah and they didn't become TERRORISTS
It makes no sense to me, to try to stop people who won't integrate becoming citizens by testing for religion when you can just test them for whether they'll integrate.
Well just a minute ago you were claiming that a lack of integration was the result of racist areas, but now it's something that can be tested before they arrive!
like I said, there's nothing to lose from stopping all muslims and everything to gain.
However, if you really only wanted the most Anglophile of all the immigrants and didn't care about losing out on extra Indian doctors,
You wouldn't need so many doctors were it not for all the extra immigrants, and I'm fairly certain India needs the doctors more than you do.
you could just make the citizenship test harder, or even throw in a personality test if you care that much. It's not even about trying not to be discriminatory, it's just that being Muslim is a really poor predictor of how willing to integrate someone is.
Nope, it's the best indicator. No other groups have such an integration problem and none of them go around decapitating soldiers.
At 11/21/14 08:14 AM, AxTekk wrote: What I'm talking about is getting the Muslims and whites in places like Bradford to not be racist pricks towards each other, because integration doesn't require people to be the same, only open. Which everyone could benefit from being.
Except Muslims are not interested in integration. They're upset because Europe isn't Muslim enough for them, which is why I'm saying that Europeans would have to completely change their countries for muslims to be "integrated", and even then they would still hate the indigenous, non-muslim population.
What does being "open" even mean, and how on earth is muslims acting like shitheads the result of a lack of "openness"?
Whties are 'racist pricks" in response to muslims being assholes and forcing their culture on everyone else. Tell me, did muslims rape thousands of children in england because they didn't feel "integrated" enough? How can child rapists even be integrated in the first place???
And why is it that non-muslim immigrants like chinese people have virtually no problems integrating?
b) prevent these people from ever entering the western world in the first placeWow, 40 years too late on that one mate.
We can stop more of them from coming here. there's nothing to lose and everything to gain from doing so.
At 11/19/14 11:47 PM, AxTekk wrote: In the fight between congress and Obama, Obama's been the one making the compromises. & Liberals are proud of that.
In the fight between congress and Obama, Obama has completely circumvented congress! hahaha
man those gamergate people sure are a bunch of hateful misogynists
