100 Dead Blacks vs 5000 Dead Blacks - what gets more coverage?

[Dos Equis]

I didn't have to work harder on not raping, stealing and murdering because I was taught right from wrong. And all that wonderful knowledge  was given for free.

Using these statistics is an attempt to instill a sense of reality, particularly during incidents like the recent riots.  The reality of crime and abuse is much different than what the rioters would like to believe. They feel entitled to a false and unearned sense of  self-righteousness and moral outrage.

No they are not.  They are used to try and make the argument that certain ethnic groups are genetically prone to violence, less intelligent, etc.

You cannot reason with the idiots who are running around looting their own friggin neighborhood.   

[Archer77]

No they are not.  They are used to try and make the argument that certain ethnic groups are genetically prone to violence, less intelligent, etc.

You cannot reason with the idiots who are running around looting their own friggin neighborhood.   

They aren't always used for that purpose.  I use them to demonstrate that those who try to assume the moral high ground need to step off their soap box.


Are they idiots?  They are only idiots if they have understanding of right and wrong.  Socioeconomic conditions prevent the development of that understanding.

[Dos Equis]

They aren't always used for that purpose.  I use them to demonstrate that those who try to assume the moral high ground need to step off their soap box.


Are they idiots?  They are only idiots if they have understanding of right and wrong.  Socioeconomic conditions prevent the development of that understanding.

Nobody is using them for that purpose. 

Yes, I clearly said socioeconomic conditions prevent people from understanding right and wrong.  That's the kind of comment you make when your position starts to crumble. 

I know you don't want to embrace the white supremacy/minority inferiority underpinnings of your entire position on this subject, but you ought to just come out and be open about it.  You know exactly how these "statistics" are used. 

[MikMaq]

Usually those black potheads are busted for other crimes and pot is found on them during that time. Another difference is that smoking pot is a passive endeavor while murder isn, the same with all drugs unless there is gang activity involved. Gang activity and association can also skew the numbers.

You cant agree what I said is directly right can you.

Its not about pot smoking or anything else.

Its about the formulas we are working with.

You cant reference numbers and refuse to use the mathematics that goes along with them.

[Archer77]

You cant agree what I said is directly right can you.

Its not about pot smoking or anything else.

Its about the formulas we are working with.

You cant reference numbers and refuse to use the mathematics that goes along with them.

Im pointing out that answers aren't always so simple.  Sometimes there are details to consider.  What a first might appear one way, will appear another when other things are taken into consideration.

[Al Doggity]

Ignoring race automatically leads to the unnecessary stopping of law abiding whites and asians.  Your suggestion defacto calls for the stopping more whites and asians.

first of all, I never suggested this! You brought it up out of the blue and oddly said it would be racist. I pointed out to you why it wouldn't be, but never said I thought it was the solution. Each of my previous posts was about  how it was not an effective policy , so why would I think the solution was to use it on more people?

[JOHN MATRIX]

Archer nailing it as usual!

[Al Doggity]

Ignoring a major point of that. I dont think most people that are educated on race are anywhere stupid enough to suggest discriminating doesnt work.

You can apply that same logic into who you will rent to, who you will higher, and who you will believe, as I think its a fact that is exactly what 99 percent of the population does.

What your not admitting to is the fallout from your math.

If blacks are 5 x more likely to commit a crime they should be searched 5 times more often.

Your ignoring the fact that there are collateral crimes detected in a bust, that may have crime rates that are equal proportion with white folk.
I.E. just as many white pot smokers as black pot smokers.

And yet those profile searches dont ignore 80 percent of pot smokers to make the number fair.

So you have passive black potheads, getting busted at a rate that is five times higher than their white passive counterparts.

That may just seem like collateral damage but that shit adds up and will fuck someone over economically.

This is the part yall seem to skip over like it has absolutely no relevance to the situation.

Truth.

[Shockwave]

Ignoring a major point of that. I dont think most people that are educated on race are anywhere stupid enough to suggest discriminating doesnt work.

You can apply that same logic into who you will rent to, who you will higher, and who you will believe, as I think its a fact that is exactly what 99 percent of the population does.

What your not admitting to is the fallout from your math.

If blacks are 5 x more likely to commit a crime they should be searched 5 times more often.

Your ignoring the fact that there are collateral crimes detected in a bust, that may have crime rates that are equal proportion with white folk.
I.E. just as many white pot smokers as black pot smokers.

And yet those profile searches dont ignore 80 percent of pot smokers to make the number fair.

So you have passive black potheads, getting busted at a rate that is five times higher than their white passive counterparts.

That may just seem like collateral damage but that shit adds up and will fuck someone over economically.

This is the part yall seem to skip over like it has absolutely no relevance to the situation.

Again let me reiterate that I dont believe that stop and frisk is legal nor right, I vehemently oppose it.

BUT,  for the sake of argument, if the goal is to use stop and frisk to reduce the number of violent crimes, and that is the metric you're using to determine which group you're focusing on, then the number of people arrested for smaller crimes during the searches is largely irrelevant.  You're not searching them to find pot, but if they do, they're still breaking the law. Its not like they're disproportionately searching blacks looking for pot,  they're looking for murderers and happen to find pot. That's not racist or discriminatory,  its just luck of the draw.

[Archer77]

first of all, I never suggested this! You brought it up out of the blue and oddly said it would be racist. I pointed out to you why it wouldn't be, but never said I thought it was the solution. Each of my previous posts was about  how it was not an effective policy , so why would I think the solution was to use it on more people?

Pointing out how it wouldn't be?   An entire demographic of individuals would be searched unnecessarily.  Whats the justification for searching them when you already know you not likely to find anything?  How is that the least bit fairer and less racist?

[Archer77]

Truth.

Do you know if he is exclusively being busted for pot because if you don't you can't make a proper comparison.  You never did answer the question whether blacks are targeting whites?

[Al Doggity]

Pointing out how it wouldn't be?   An entire demographic of individuals would be searched unnecessarily.  Whats the justification for searching them when you already know you not likely to find anything?  How is that the least bit fairer and less racist?

It's less racist because it's not based on race. Stop and frisk , as it is, results in something like 5% arrests, 1% convictions , and 0.05 gun recovery. Stop and frisk doesn't uncover gun crime in significant numbers. It finds drug users, people with warrants, etc  most of the time. People of races other than black commit plenty of crimes.There is no reason to assume you are "not likely to find anything".

[Archer77]

It's less racist because it's not based on race. Stop and frisk , as it is, results in something like 5% arrests, 1% convictions , and 0.05 gun recovery. Stop and frisk doesn't uncover gun crime in significant numbers. It finds drug users, people with warrants, etc  most of the time. People of races other than black commit plenty of crimes.There is no reason to assume you are "not likely to find anything".

It's without a doubt about race.  You're intentionally targeting a particular race when it's unnecessary. Would you also suggest checking Harlem for stock market insider trading?

[Shockwave]

It's less racist because it's not based on race. Stop and frisk , as it is, results in something like 5% arrests, 1% convictions , and 0.05 gun recovery. Stop and frisk doesn't uncover gun crime in significant numbers. It finds drug users, people with warrants, etc  most of the time. People of races other than black commit plenty of crimes.There is no reason to assume you are "not likely to find anything".

I guess I just don't understand the logic....

'because they didn't fund guns but they found people with WARRANTS' makes it racist. Theyre targeting the group with the highest likely hood to commit 'x' crime, and they're finding 'y' crime instead. Just because they happening to be targeting 'x' grouo more because of a proclivity to commit the crime doesn't make 'y' crime any less of a crime.

Its not like theyre targeting them unfairly for 'y', they just happen to find it when searching for 'x'.

Nothing racist or discriminatory about it. The idea that 'unless theyre catching both races equally its racist' makes no sense as theyre not targeting them for that crime. Its simply a lottery.

When they start using stop and frisk to search for pot possesion and they're targeting blacks at a 5:1 ratio THEN you have an argument.

[Archer77]

I guess I just don't understand the logic....

'because they didn't fund guns but they found people with WARRANTS' makes it racist. Theyre targeting the group with the highest likely hood to commit 'x' crime, and they're finding 'y' crime instead. Just because they happening to be targeting 'x' grouo more because of a proclivity to commit the crime doesn't make 'y' crime any less of a crime.

Its not like theyre targeting them unfairly for 'y', they just happen to find it when searching for 'x'.

Nothing racist or discriminatory about it. The idea that 'unless theyre catching both races equally its racist' makes no sense as theyre not targeting them for that crime. Its simply a lottery.

Which is precisely the reason the imaginary black guy is popped for pot possession.  His post proves my point.

[Al Doggity]

I guess I just don't understand the logic....

'because they didn't fund guns but they found people with WARRANTS' makes it racist. Theyre targeting the group with the highest likely hood to commit 'x' crime, and they're finding 'y' crime instead. Just because they happening to be targeting 'x' grouo more because of a proclivity to commit the crime doesn't make 'y' crime any less of a crime.

Its not like theyre targeting them unfairly for 'y', they just happen to find it when searching for 'x'.

Nothing racist or discriminatory about it. The idea that 'unless theyre catching both races equally its racist' makes no sense as theyre not targeting them for that crime. Its simply a lottery.

When they start using stop and frisk to search for pot possesion and they're targeting blacks at a 5:1 ratio THEN you have an argument.

The point is not that they find "X" instead of "Y", but that they rarely find either "X" or "Y".Never said anything about "unless they're catching both races equally, it's racist."

[Archer77]

The point is not that they find "X" instead of "Y", but that they rarely find either "X" or "Y".Never said anything about "unless they're catching both races equally, it's racist."

You argued that it was racist not that its ineffective.   

[Shockwave]

You argued that it was racist not that its ineffective.   

Thats what I got from his earlier arguments as well.

[Al Doggity]

It's without a doubt about race.  You're intentionally targeting a particular race when it's unnecessary. Would you also suggest checking Harlem for stock market insider trading?

No, it's currently about race. Unnecessary? It's not as if other races don't commit crimes, or ever commit crimes in miniscule number in NYC.

[Archer77]

Thats what I got from his earlier arguments as well.

I want a clarification on how its racist.  If the majority of crimes are committed by particular groups wouldn't you want to focus on them?

[Al Doggity]

Thats what I got from his earlier arguments as well.

What do you think this meant:

Stop and frisk , as it is, results in something like 5% arrests, 1% convictions , and 0.05 gun recovery. Stop and frisk doesn't uncover gun crime in significant numbers.

[Soul Crusher]

What do you think this meant:

Stop and frisk , as it is, results in something like 5% arrests, 1% convictions , and 0.05 gun recovery. Stop and frisk doesn't uncover gun crime in significant numbers.

Who cares as long as it harasses and upsets a few uppity blacks walking around like ghetto thugs and criminals.          

[Al Doggity]

I want a clarification on how its racist.  If the majority of crimes are committed by particular groups wouldn't you want to focus on them?

They aren't catching criminals in significant numbers. They are making stops of one demographic in significant numbers but it's not leading to actual arrests and convictions

[Al Doggity]

Who cares as long as it harasses and upsets a few uppity blacks walking around like ghetto thugs and criminals.          

 

[Archer77]

No, it's currently about race. Unnecessary? It's not as if other races don't commit crimes, or ever commit crimes in miniscule number in NYC.

They don't commit gun crimes at nearly the same rate.  Are you saying its not fair that 90% of the those stopped are hispanic and black when they commit 90% of the gun crime?