Missouri KKK Threaten Use of Lethal Force Against Ferguson Protestors - Polidicks

[QUOTE=kurgan;46493488]-video-[/QUOTE] ok so i guess solving legitimate problems that worsen race relations along with their own handbasket of issues is synonymous with empty rhetoric thanks for posting

[QUOTE=kurgan;46493253]Still waiting on an explanation of how racism can cause tens of thousands of money-men to collectively leave hundreds of billions of dollars worth of real estate arbitrage on the table.[/QUOTE] I'm still waiting on [I]your[/I] theory of why crime statistics look as they do. You have not offered a single position of your own during the course of this thread; you have only attacked other peoples'. If you discount every factor that we've already discussed, then what factors do you believe should be considered? Please, fill me in. Do you actually have any theories, or are you only here to assert that we have all misinterpreted the historical, social, and economic factors of this issue without offering any guidance towards how we [I]should[/I] be looking at things?

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;46493431][t]http://i.imgur.com/JMC51kn.png?1[/t] Blue represents the concentration of black people in this city, and red is the whites. I find it very hard to argue that race is not a driving force of this. However, even if we cannot prove beyond a doubt that White Flight was the [I]primary[/I] factor of black people in Saint Louis ending up in the situation that they currently live in, it is very easy to show that they came to this point as a result of very strong sociopolitical influences, and that racism played a strong part throughout the entire process. The blue areas of this map are deeply povertous and riddled with crime, and very little has changed on an institutional level to go about making a real difference in this. There is a very good reason that black people in America feel disenfranchised and abandoned at best, and outright subjugated at worst, and that map paints in very clear colors what that reason is.[/QUOTE] No, you cannot make the inference that racism played a part, from that evidence. Besides Schelling showing that massive segregation like this can happen with only very minor amounts of prejudice (classic counterintuitive result where group behavior is very unlike individual behavior), it is entirely consistent with (and predicted by) the criminality hypothesis. [editline]15th November 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Flameon;46493495]I think percentages would be better here than strict total number of deaths... I say this because I'm not suprised more white people are justfiably shot by police to death, you know... since there are like 6x more white ppl than black people. Raw 'numbers' like this are also super misleading bc you can say, "well, more white people are in prison than black people!" ... yes, thats true, but the proportion of black in prison to black out of it vs the same for whites is ridiculously different.[/QUOTE] blacks make up ~14% of the population, just eyeball it

[QUOTE=kurgan;46493488][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3gQJMMlt_E[/media][/QUOTE] you do realize that ridicule is not an argument, and that it's an entirely masturbatory mode of engagement

[QUOTE=kurgan;46493520]No, you cannot make the inference that racism played a part, from that evidence. Besides Schelling showing that massive segregation like this can happen with only very minor amounts of prejudice (classic counterintuitive result where group behavior is very unlike individual behavior), it is entirely consistent with (and predicted by) the criminality hypothesis. [editline]15th November 2014[/editline] blacks make up ~14% of the population, just eyeball it[/QUOTE] Your "criminality" hypothesis has, so far, been backed by no evidence or theories as to why that criminality exists in the first place, however. You've thrown this position out there, and done nothing whatsoever to explain your reasoning behind it. While you may disagree with my position, I am at least offering an in-depth summary of why I hold that position, and what factors I believe are important towards supporting it. You have not done this.

[QUOTE=kurgan;46493520] blacks make up ~14% of the population, just eyeball it[/QUOTE] And whites make up 72.4 %... sorry! 5x not 6, pretty sure my point still stands

[QUOTE=kurgan;46493520]No, you cannot make the inference that racism played a part, from that evidence. Besides Schelling showing that massive segregation like this can happen with only very minor amounts of prejudice (classic counterintuitive result where group behavior is very unlike individual behavior), it is entirely consistent with (and predicted by) the criminality hypothesis.[/QUOTE] Correlation does not imply causation. Biblical creation is consistent with the existence of snakes and apples, but that does not make snakes and apples evidence of biblical creation.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;46493557]Correlation does not imply causation. Biblical creation is consistent with the existence of snakes and apples, but that does not make snakes and apples evidence of biblical creation.[/QUOTE] Yeah because the bible is really relevant right now It does imply causation in this case

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;46493557]Correlation does not imply causation. Biblical creation is consistent with the existence of snakes and apples, but that does not make snakes and apples evidence of biblical creation.[/QUOTE] No, my point is that in this analogy, the existence of snakes and apples cannot be used to distinguish between creationism and evolution, because both hypotheses predict their existence. To do that, you need to use Occam's Razor - creation necessitates the existence of a deity which is extremely complicated, while evolution relies on conceptually simple processes. BDA looks at the map and thinks it necessitates the racism hypothesis, but I contend that it does not, because the criminality hypothesis makes the same prediction.

[QUOTE=MetricLuvsU;46493580]Yeah because the bible is really relevant right now It does imply causation in this case[/QUOTE] the argument is equally fallacious in all circumstances which it can be used. I refer to creation because I most often hear that argument made in service of creationism. But if you think this instance really is different I would like you to explain why.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;46493613]the argument is equally fallacious in all circumstances which it can be used. I refer to creation because I most often hear that argument made in service of creationism. But if you think this instance really is different I would like you to explain why.[/QUOTE] Its different because you think that somehow black people are at all comparable to snakes and that when they live in the white world how they're being oppressed and whatnot when they try to not be

[QUOTE=kurgan;46493601]No, my point is that in this analogy, the existence of snakes and apples cannot be used to distinguish between creationism and evolution, because both hypotheses predict their existence. To do that, you need to use Occam's Razor - creation necessitates the existence of a deity which is extremely complicated, while evolution relies on conceptually simple processes. BDA looks at the map and thinks it necessitates the racism hypothesis, but I contend that it does not, because the criminality hypothesis makes the same prediction.[/QUOTE] Yet you have still failed, after all this time, to back up your reasoning of the "criminality" hypothesis. You cannot keep pushing that hypothesis without ever once explaining why you feel that black crime statistics are as they are, because those are a [I]massive[/I] factor of that hypothesis.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;46493539]Your "criminality" hypothesis has, so far, been backed by no evidence or theories as to why that criminality exists in the first place, however. You've thrown this position out there, and done nothing whatsoever to explain your reasoning behind it. While you may disagree with my position, I am at least offering an in-depth summary of why I hold that position, and what factors I believe are important towards supporting it. You have not done this.[/QUOTE] You really cant just assume black people are criminals, stop basing everything off those stereotypes you see on TV.

[QUOTE=MetricLuvsU;46493649]You really cant just assume black people are criminals, stop basing everything off those stereotypes you see on TV.[/QUOTE] i knew it, bda was the real racist all along

[QUOTE=kurgan;46493601]No, my point is that in this analogy, the existence of snakes and apples cannot be used to distinguish between creationism and evolution, because both hypotheses predict their existence. To do that, you need to use Occam's Razor - creation necessitates the existence of a deity which is extremely complicated, while evolution relies on conceptually simple processes. BDA looks at the map and thinks it necessitates the racism hypothesis, but I contend that it does not, because the criminality hypothesis makes the same prediction.[/QUOTE] You don't use occam's razor. Evolution's veracity is not influenced in any way by snakes or apples, nor by any other thing is is consistent with but not corroborative of it's claims. Evolution is proven by both archaeological and direct observation of the process of evolution. Everything else is irrelevant. I will let BDA make his own arguments. I will say that racism, prejudice, and suppression are far more well documented than "criminality", and if we're going to be using Occam's Razor I would think we'd end up on the side of the thing we actually know exists.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;46493652]i knew it, bda was the real racist all along[/QUOTE] Oh yeah because kiwis just know [I]sooo[/I] much about what goes on here in America. Please go deal with your own problems first. :)

[QUOTE=kurgan;46493601]No, my point is that in this analogy, the existence of snakes and apples cannot be used to distinguish between creationism and evolution, because both hypotheses predict their existence. To do that, you need to use Occam's Razor - creation necessitates the existence of a deity which is extremely complicated, while evolution relies on conceptually simple processes. BDA looks at the map and thinks it necessitates the racism hypothesis, but I contend that it does not, because the criminality hypothesis makes the same prediction.[/QUOTE] what exactly is the criminality hypothesis

[QUOTE=MetricLuvsU;46493634]Its different because you think that somehow black people are at all comparable to snakes and that when they live in the white world how they're being oppressed and whatnot when they try to not be[/QUOTE] I'm not comparing the subjects of the two arguments, I am comparing the logic.

[QUOTE=kurgan;46493426]I would hazard a guess that blacks are more likely to smoke outdoors, but this is based on anecdotes so I won't rest on it.[/quote] Why would they be more likely? You keep saying things like this. What exactly are you getting at? [QUOTE=kurgan;46493426]blacks were only one factor among many: [img]http://i.imgur.com/caPhTLr.png[/img] in particular, inner-city zones were often redlined not because of the racial composition, but because they were older buildings that cost more to insure (this is also a partial cause for urban sprawl).[/QUOTE] Maybe black populations were only one factor of many that were used to weigh the risks, but this actually proves that the overall racial composition of a neighborhood was a [I]massive[/I] influence, second only to the actual housing value. Add those different races/ethnicities together, and you're looking at exactly what you said was only a "myth."

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;46493657]You don't use occam's razor. Evolution's veracity is not influenced in any way by snakes or apples, nor by any other thing is is consistent with but not corroborative of it's claims. Evolution is proven by both archaeological and direct observation of the process of evolution. Everything else is irrelevant.[/quote] Actually, that evidence on its own really is sufficient to favor evolution over creationism (whether evolution is a good theory on its own merits is what you need other evidence for)

[QUOTE=MetricLuvsU;46493649]You really cant just assume black people are criminals, stop basing everything off those stereotypes you see on TV.[/QUOTE] Did you just stumble in here and quote a random post to drop that little gem? Because I have never once argued anything even close to what you are suggesting. Exactly the opposite, in fact.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;46493668]I'm not comparing the subjects of the two arguments, I am comparing the logic.[/QUOTE] Without the means justifying the ends, the logic isn't something you can compare. [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;46493679]Did you just stumble in here and quote a random post to drop that little gem? Because I have never once argued anything even close to what you are suggesting. Exactly the opposite, in fact.[/QUOTE] You are [I]literally[/I] saying that black people are criminals and that they have tendencies to be way more violent than the rest of the population.

[QUOTE=MetricLuvsU;46493689]Without the means justifying the ends, the logic isn't something you can compare. You are [I]literally[/I] saying that black people are criminals and that they have tendencies to be way more violent than the rest of the population.[/QUOTE] Wow. Uh. No, I'm not. Holy moly. How did you get that out of anything that I have said up to this point?

[QUOTE=kurgan;46493671]Actually, that evidence on its own really is sufficient to favor evolution over creationism (whether evolution is a good theory on its own merits is what you need other evidence for)[/QUOTE] no it is not in the absence of evidence supporting any conclusion, all conclusions are equally false

Are you confusing me for Kurgan? Because he's the one who's been dancing around that particular point for the past couple of hours, without having worked up the courage to come right out and say it, because he knows the second he does he'll lose any and all sense of credibility he may have ever had in this discussion.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;46493701]no it is not in the absence of evidence supporting any conclusion, all conclusions are equally false[/QUOTE] Theres a reason why its called the [I]theory[/I] of evolution and why its not called the theory of creationism. Not that this has anything to do with anything

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;46493670]Maybe black populations were only one factor of many that were used to weigh the risks, but this actually proves that the overall racial composition of a neighborhood was a [I]massive[/I] influence, second only to the actual housing value. Add those different races/ethnicities together, and you're looking at exactly what you said was only a "myth."[/QUOTE] Fine, though the rest of the evidence I posted remains.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;46493696]Wow. Uh. No, I'm not. Holy moly. How did you get that out of anything that I have said up to this point?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;46493723]One of links I posted addresses this specifically: Blacks are, historically [I]and[/I] contemporarily, the most disadvantaged demographic in this country. They dominate the demographics for urban poverty, and urban poverty presents unique conditions for crime that will not exist, or exist on a much smaller scale, in whiter areas with similar poverty levels. Gangs, for example, are a uniquely urban threat. While they are spreading farther and farther into rural and suburban areas, almost every major player in the gang world is hosted from an area of urban poverty, which, as just mentioned, are predominantly compromised of minorities, especially blacks. Less than 10% of gang membership is white, yet gangs account for almost 50% of all violent crime in this country. What does this tell us? This has wildly skewed the statistics of violent crime rates, and led to exact misunderstanding of those statistics that you are currently demonstrating. In dozens of cities around the country, and especially in Saint Louis, black gangs grew from the seeds of urban poverty, and perpetuated through institutional racism. Unless you have some other explanation? Because this is a pretty well documented, and widely accepted theory on the true history of black crime and gang violence in the United States. If you are discounting this, then what is [I]your[/I] explanation for black crime? Currently, it seems there isn't one, other than the fact that black people are black. [/QUOTE] Does that [I]not[/I] seem racist at all?

[QUOTE=MetricLuvsU;46493689]Without the means justifying the ends, the logic isn't something you can compare.[/QUOTE] I don't know what the phrase "the means justifying the ends" means in this context. Regardless, the logic of an argument is separate from the subject of an argument. The arguments "X is wrong because that guy's ugly" and "X is true because that guy's crazy" are both ad hominem arguments. The subjects may be different, but the lines of reasoning are identically flawed.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;46493696]Wow. Uh. No, I'm not. Holy moly. How did you get that out of anything that I have said up to this point?[/QUOTE] Don't listen to him Metrics, he's the real racist! [editline]15th November 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;46493701]no it is not in the absence of evidence supporting any conclusion, all conclusions are equally false[/QUOTE] No, you weight them inversely according to their complexity. If you have a list of hypothesis that generate identical predictions, you go with the simplest. The Cartesian Demon produces the exact same sensory information you would see otherwise, but you don't entertain it as a serious hypothesis because it is strictly more complex than the default.