Is Orlando the price we pay for freedom or is there a law that could of prevented it?

[Town Heretic]

I do not claim that all acts of violence, crime, etc. can be blamed on minorities. I do not claim that if America were all-white, all-Christian, America would be a perfect society with absolutely no problems.

That would just be silly.

-er.

What I do claim is that minorities greatly exacerbate problems. And not just here in the US. Not just in Europe. It's true all over the world throughout history. The more different people are and the less they have in common, the greater the potential is for violence, crime, etc.

The truth is that the poor are disproportionately more likely to commit crimes. The dominant race in a society tends to hold power and coin and immigrants take a while to join the prosperous ranks. But most good ol European descended stock is responsible for killing its own kind, just as most black homicides are at the hands of other blacks.

Get rid of the minorities, and you get rid of that particular problem. There are still other problems, but not as many.

You get rid of any number of people and you reduce the number of problems. But if we'd taken your advice early in our history we'd be short all sorts of invaluable contributions to the whole, from blood plasma to jazz.

Again, compare white on black violent crime to black on white violent crimes.

According to the FBI, in 2015 out of every 100 white victims of violent crime, 13 would be at the hands of blacks, 56 at the hands of other whites. If you were black, 10 would be attributable from whites and 62 from blacks. That's not exactly a huge difference, is it.

When you have populations that don't share much in common having to live with each other

In this country race is mostly an artificial division. We share much more by class and exclude much more by class and still have more in common than not.

That's what we're facing now with the BLM movement, with the anti-police protests, etc.

No, what you're seeing are people who've had enough of disparately violent treatment and supposition at the hands of a certain element within the police force. Some of it stems from the forces at work within the community with cops (of multiple races) becoming cynical, suspicious and wary given the sort of poverty and violence they encounter in poorer communities. Some of it is racist.

I say (though without particularly great conviction): send them all back to Africa.

And you sound profoundly ignorant when you do, though not as ignorant as when you suggest sending all Muslims there. . . so that's something, lain:

See how they like living with and being ruled by black people

You really don't know much history, do you? Another time then, we'll start with the Moors.

Note further that my comments should not be construed as racist in the ideological sense, nor should they be considered as offensive to any black people in particular.

If they don't look different in application it's a meaningless distinction and you don't get to decide the last bit. A bit like me saying something direct about your ancestry and then telling you it's a purely genetic speculation and you shouldn't be offended.

Do please tell me about those Catholic on protestant hate crimes being committed on a regular basis in the US.

Try to approach this as though you had a college education and can understand the point. You're making a specious claim. What keeps a population unified in the manner you're thinking almost never happens and when it does there's by and large always a dictator of some sort holding it in that fashion by force or arms, imposition of edict and cultural propaganda (see: Japan, etc.). Good ol, culture sharing Europeans lost a third of their total population fighting over a contrived distinction.

Is that even true?

Sure. You're a minority member. It just never occurred to you that most others weren't. That's why it was possible to elect a black president. That literally couldn't have happened a couple of generations ago.

What are your criteria for being a racist?

It isn't my definition. Buy a dictionary.

What polls/statistics have you looked at to confirm this?

Supra by way of illustration.

In 1968, according to GALLUP, less than 20% of the U.S. population approved of interracial couples. By 2013 that figure was 87% and if you looked at the younger people, cutting off at 29, it was 97%. Huge generational sea change in this country since the Civil Rights Movement.

Integration has proved a failure time and time again.

No, it's been a great boon to us in a number of ways. It's been less of a boon for minorities, but that's steadily improved.

We must segregate.

Get a time machine or just stand around griping about it until you die, dinosaur. It's not going to happen.

"Now we don't want no integration. Whites and [racial slur censored] must not mix. Every place that's ever tried it wound up in an awful fix" (from the song Lyndon, Lyndon).

"Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world. Red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in his sight. Jesus loves the little children of the world." My song beats your song all to heck and back.

 

[jgarden]

1. Canada accepted 25 000 Syrian refugees between November 2015 and March 2016. To date there has not been a documented instance of one new Moslem immigrant threatening the safety of Canadian citizens.

2. Windsor, Ontario is less than a mile from Detroit, Michigan - linked by the Ambassador Bridge that crosses the Detroit River. While Detroit averages at least one homicide daily (usually gun related), Windsor went 26 months without a single recorded homicide - from any cause!

3. Unless one is prepared to argue that America is populated by an inherently more violent subspecies of humans than their Canadian counterparts with whom they share 5 525 miles of border, what distinguishes American from Canadian society is an irrational fear of new immigrants and the fallacy that the 2nd Amendment guarantees individual freedoms and/or acts as an effective deterrent to promote personal safety.

 

[WizardofOz]

I had 16 minutes to respond. Apparently I missed my window. So it goes :sigh:

 

[Alate_One]

Orlando is the price that we pay for minorities. :nono:

I think it's the price we pay for *men* having guns. If we made a law that only women could own guns and built firearms so that only females could pull the trigger, voila no mass shootings.

Banning Muslims or immigrants or anyone else from firearms wouldn't do it, but banning men would. So, are you up for something discriminatory that would actually work?

 

[ClimateSanity]

I think it's the price we pay for *men* having guns. If we made a law that only women could own guns and built firearms so that only females could pull the trigger, voila no mass shootings.

Banning Muslims or immigrants or anyone else from firearms wouldn't do it, but banning men would. So, are you up for something discriminatory that would actually work?

Women can not kill on a massive scale?

 

[Alate_One]

3. Unless one is prepared to argue that America is populated by an inherently more violent subspecies of humans than their Canadian counterparts with whom they share 5 525 miles of border, what distinguishes American from Canadian society is an irrational fear of new immigrants and the fallacy that the 2nd Amendment guarantees individual freedoms and/or acts as an effective deterrent to promote personal safety.

Canada has a major difference in culture though, they really didn't have slavery to the degree the USA did. They certainly have minorities, especially nowadays, but there's no equivalent history of whites dominating other large groups of people. The big exception being native Americans, but at least recently they've been actively trying to make amends for that.

Canada has little to no history of segregation and concentration of poverty in inner cities while still being a nation of immigrants. Canada is the experiment of the USA without a lot of the national policy mistakes made in the USA.

 

[Alate_One]

Women can not kill on a massive scale?

They can, but they don't. In the USA 98% of all mass shootings are done by men.

 

[ClimateSanity]

Canada has a major difference in culture though, they really didn't have slavery to the degree the USA did. They certainly have minorities, especially nowadays, but there's no equivalent history of whites dominating other large groups of people. The big exception being native Americans, but at least recently they've been actively trying to make amends for that.

Canada has little to no history of segregation and concentration of poverty in inner cities while still being a nation of immigrants. Canada is the experiment of the USA without a lot of the national policy mistakes made in the USA.

Our history of dominating minorities makes us more likely to commit violence on a massive scale? Connect the logic dots please.

 

[ClimateSanity]

They can, but they don't. In the USA 98% of all mass shootings are done by men.

Change the roles women play in society and make gun ownership attractive to them and you will see those numbers change, especially if you put them under similar stressed situations as men.

 

[Alate_One]

Our history of dominating minorities makes us more likely to commit violence on a massive scale? Connect the logic dots please.

It's white resentment. Because even the poorest white person was in a better position than the best off black person in the past, some whites see black people getting ahead as inherently diminishing their position. White people assume everything is supposed to be getting better for them, that the American dream is normal (even though it isn't) and when it doesn't work out they become angry at those around them. They're the cause so take them down with you in a mass shooting. It's the culture tells men they're supposed to be the masters of everything, breadwinners, and just plain winners. And if you don't win, its someone else's fault. (Sound like anyone we know?)

Women in the USA at least typically don't do this, we internalize rather than externalize. Assume it's our fault rather than someone else's. The latter response tends to not lead to mass shootings.

 

[Alate_One]

Change the roles women play in society and make gun ownership attractive to them and you will see those numbers change, especially if you put them under similar stressed situations as men.

Lots of women already own guns. They don't take them out and shoot up large numbers of people.

 

[ClimateSanity]

It's white resentment. Because even the poorest white person was in a better position than the best off black person in the past, some whites see black people getting ahead as inherently diminishing their position. White people assume everything is supposed to be getting better for them, that the American dream is normal (even though it isn't) and when it doesn't work out they become angry at those around them. They're the cause so take them down with you in a mass shooting. It's the culture tells men they're supposed to be the masters of everything, breadwinners, and just plain winners. And if you don't win, its someone else's fault. (Sound like anyone we know?)

Women in the USA at least typically don't do this, we internalize rather than externalize. Assume it's our fault rather than someone else's. The latter response tends to not lead to mass shootings.

I can see how this would apply to a few males but I think most mass shootings are caused by other feelings than those you listed. I don't see many blue collar traditionalists shooting people up because they are no longer employed. Instead, they are killing themselves with heroin and poor health habits and risky behaviors.

 

[ClimateSanity]

Lots of women already own guns. They don't take them out and shoot up large numbers of people.

Still not as many as men. As I said, put more pressure and expectations on them and the numbers will change. When they are expected to do more than raise children and society expects more from them, the numbers will increase. By the way as far as blaming others, were you referring to trump?

 

[Alate_One]

Still not as many as men. As I said, put more pressure and expectations on them and the numbers will change. When they are expected to do more than raise children and society expects more from them, the numbers will increase.

Not sure that is the case. In most countries women don't carry out violence nearly to the level that men do.

By the way as far as blaming others, were you referring to trump?

Trump is a prime example of the thought patterns of white resentment. Support for Trump correlates very strongly with feelings of white resentment.

 

[Nick M]

Murder is already against the law. People that have declared war against us should be removed.

 

[Traditio]

The truth is that the poor are disproportionately more likely to commit crimes. The dominant race in a society tends to hold power and coin and immigrants take a while to join the prosperous ranks.

Thus explaining the fact that Asians predominately tend to be undereducated and poor...

...

wait...

...

Never mind.

#BackToAfrica
#BuildThatWall

But most good ol European descended stock is responsible for killing its own kind, just as most black homicides are at the hands of other blacks.

[Blacks], according to this link, are over 5 times more likely to commit a violent crime against whites than the other way around.

Apparently, ditto for [black] on hispanic crime.

You get rid of any number of people and you reduce the number of problems. But if we'd taken your advice early in our history we'd be short all sorts of invaluable contributions to the whole, from blood plasma to jazz.

1. Just how highly do you value jazz?

2. I'm unclear on the blood plasma point.

3. This is presupposes the notion that no white person could have figured that stuff out in due time. I find this dubious at best.

According to the FBI, in 2015 out of every 100 white victims of violent crime, 13 would be at the hands of blacks, 56 at the hands of other whites. If you were black, 10 would be attributable from whites and 62 from blacks. That's not exactly a huge difference, is it.

When you consider the number of crimes in question and the total number of persons victimized, that is a HUGE difference.

[Blacks] commit way more violent crimes against whites, numerically speaking, than the other way around. And given the fact that [blacks] are relatively few in number relative to the rest of the population (not that you'd guess it, living in the South), yes, that's a HUGE difference.

If 1 person eats a 10th of the pizza, whereas 10 people eat 1/10th of the pizza, that 1 person is a glutton in comparison.

#ShipThemBackToAfrica

In this country race is mostly an artificial division. We share much more by class and exclude much more by class and still have more in common than not.

Because culture, upbringing, etc. have nothing to do with it. Of course, of course.

No, what you're seeing are people who've had enough of disparately violent treatment and supposition at the hands of a certain element within the police force. Some of it stems from the forces at work within the community with cops (of multiple races) becoming cynical, suspicious and wary given the sort of poverty and violence they encounter in poorer communities. Some of it is racist.

If the [blacks] in question were back in Africa, we wouldn't be having this problem. That's all that I'm saying.

Try to approach this as though you had a college education and can understand the point. You're making a specious claim. What keeps a population unified in the manner you're thinking almost never happens and when it does there's by and large always a dictator of some sort holding it in that fashion by force or arms, imposition of edict and cultural propaganda (see: Japan, etc.). Good ol, culture sharing Europeans lost a third of their total population fighting over a contrived distinction.

Which is why protestants and Catholics are constantly committing terrorist attacks on each other in the US nowadays.

Wait...

Never mind.

Sure. You're a minority member. It just never occurred to you that most others weren't. That's why it was possible to elect a black president. That literally couldn't have happened a couple of generations ago.

It isn't my definition. Buy a dictionary.


Supra by way of illustration.

In 1968, according to GALLUP, less than 20% of the U.S. population approved of interracial couples. By 2013 that figure was 87% and if you looked at the younger people, cutting off at 29, it was 97%. Huge generational sea change in this country since the Civil Rights Movement.

That doesn't prove anything. 1. Depending on the phrasing of the question, even I would be forced to admit that I "approve," in some sense, the marital union of [blacks] and white people (because the Catholic faith demands that I admit it as morally licit), even though I personally disapprove greatly of such things (tolerance =/= endorsement). 2. Not to mention the observer effect (or whatever it's called). How honest do you expect racists to be on polls? 3. And again, what about the precise verbiage of the question?

To sum up: "Most people 'approve' (whatever that means)of interracial marriages" doesn't demonstrate that most people are not racists. A cursory google search told me that a strong minority, if not the majority, of people in this country consider racism a "problem," whatever that means.

If polls were conducted differently, if different questions were asked, etc., we might find a much higher percentage of racists.

The sheer number of participants in the BLM movement and Trump supporters suggests as much.

No, it's been a great boon to us in a number of ways.

Please explain. I beg to differ. I went to public schools with [blacks].

 

[Traditio]

Though, once again, I wish to reiterate the fact that I mean no offense or disparagement to any [blacks] in particular.

 

[Town Heretic]

Thus explaining the fact that Asians predominately tend to be undereducated and poor...

Asians have done well as immigrants. It didn't start that way, took a fair amount of time if you know the history.

[Racial slur starting with an "n" censored], according to this link, are over 5 times more likely to commit a violent crime against whites than the other way around.

That's the only time I'm going to reproduce you behaving badly. I only leave it so people will understand what I'm talking about at the end of this.

According to the FBI, most crime is committed within a race. But another answer is that blacks comprise a comparatively small number compared to whites. Say you had a field with one thousand people standing in it with the representative individuals in that field scaled racially. Throw a baseball into it and you're much more likely to hit a white person. Doesn't mean you're motivated to hit one. You just mean to bean someone with a baseball. The rest is percentages.

1. Just how highly do you value jazz?

It's transcendent at its best, as with Davis, Parker, etc. It's valued by a great many people and world wide. It influenced other forms of music, as well as literature. It's our only original art form.

2. I'm unclear on the blood plasma point.

Charles Drew, a physician who pioneered blood plasma storage. God knows how many lives that's saved.

3. This is presupposes the notion that no white person could have figured that stuff out in due time. I find this dubious at best.

Rather, it doesn't presuppose at all. It simply begins a ponderous list of contributions that actually happened.

When you consider the number of crimes in question and the total number of persons victimized, that is a HUGE difference.

Not in any meaningful way as it relates to saying something about race.

...commit way more violent crimes against whites, numerically speaking, than the other way around.

Line up 100 of each color and you'd have three more out of that one hundred as the difference.

Because culture, upbringing, etc. have nothing to do with it. Of course, of course.

That's a fairly nonsensical statement in response. The class you're born into heavily influences if not determines the degree and sort of culture you're exposed to and assimilate. If you're born into relative affluence you'll have a wide course set for you, culturally. You'll have the best books, tutors if necessary, medical care, etc. You'll travel to other continents and bring the broadening context of that back with you. You'll attend and be expected to compete in the best schools and form a career in some professional field, from business to the law. Class yields all sorts of advantages that impact what you do with your life.

Which is why protestants and Catholics are constantly committing terrorist attacks on each other in the US nowadays.

Maybe you're simply not as intelligent as I thought you'd have to be given your level of education. Or is it that you underestimate anyone else and so assume that will work, somehow. Again, I'm illustrating that folly of your premise. It wasn't people of other cultures that caused a war that decimated Europe. They managed it all on their own.

On race...

That doesn't prove anything.

It proves a number of things, beginning with a dramatic shift in the general population relative to interracial couples. The election of the President is another indicator, as is the number of people who self describe as racist and the shrinkage of their memberships.

1. Depending on the phrasing of the question,

PEW and Gallop understand how to advance questions without bias skewing and to account for a certain degree of dishonesty.

2. Not to mention the observer effect (or whatever it's called). How honest do you expect racists to be on polls?

Another thing this demonstrates is you don't have any background in statistics and polling. You can actually predict the reliable nature of the data. Haven't you ever wondered what the plus/minus was all about. Hint: that's what it was all about.

To sum up: "Most people 'approve' (whatever that means)of interracial marriages" doesn't demonstrate that most people are not racists.

It would be a very odd racist who would find interracial couples socially acceptable. And, again, the remarkable evolution of that trend speaks to it in part.

A cursory google search told me that a strong minority, if not the majority, of people in this country consider racism a "problem," whatever that means.

49% believe that racism is a problem in this country. I agree. Doesn't impact my point. Another encouraging poll shows that when asked to list the least desirable neighbor less than 5% of people in our nation indicated a racially motivated objection, putting our response among the most progressive of nations on race in the world.

If polls were conducted differently, if different questions were asked, etc., we might find a much higher percentage of racists.

No reason, outside of your desire on the point, to suspect it and any number of reasons to reject your notion. And, again, the younger generations coming up are remarkably free of that ignorant nonsense, comparatively.

The sheer number of participants in the BLM movement and Trump supporters suggests as much.

No, they really don't.

Please explain. I beg to differ. I went to public schools with...

I could, but this habit you're indulging in offends me and so I'm disinclined to take your request seriously. In fact, if you keep that up I'm just going to beat you severely with the funny stick and leave off trying to take much you say seriously at all...which seems fair.

 

[ok doser]

... is there a law that could of prevented it?

of course

in fact, there are two

Matthew 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.