LumenSageAlexander said:
But it's increasingly hard for me to hold it against them as they continue to be subject to police brutality for bullshit reasons with no sign of consequences and no end in sight.

Having a long history of committing crimes and being more willing to commit crimes are not bullshit reasons.

LumenSageAlexander said:
At some point people need to acknowledge that this is no better than a lack of law enforcement.

Lack of law enforcement, or shortage due to excess crime? Those riots only make the situation much worse.

LumenSageAlexander said:
I do have a problem with them in normal circumstances.

The fact that you added "in normal circumstances" to that suggests you don't have a problem with it.

Question. If one of these riots was happening in your are and your stuff was being smashed, would you still be okay with it?

BlueDingo said:
Having a long history of committing crimes and being more willing to commit crimes are not bullshit reasons.

So you're saying that racial prejudice on the part of police officers is a valid reason to shoot someone without even attempting to de-escalate a situation, viciously beat a teenage girl for having the gall to not be 100% polite, or take someone into holding where they 'mysteriously' end up dead?

BlueDingo said:
Lack of law enforcement, or shortage due to excess crime? Those riots only make the situation much worse.

I said that this situation is no better than lack of law enforcement. What you're asking isn't related to that at all.

BlueDingo said:
The fact that you added "in normal circumstances" to that suggests you don't have a problem with it.

That's incredibly simplified but okay.

BlueDingo said:
Question. If one of these riots was happening in your are and your stuff was being smashed, would you still be okay with it?

Better question: How much property damage was actually incurred in the Ferguson "riots"?

Followup question: How much of that damage was incurred in black-owned businesses that Ferguson residents wouldn't have anything to gain from damaging?

To answer YOUR question, just so you don't try to accuse me of deflecting: If I was personally in the situation that they were in, I would probably be participating in said 'riots.' Because I would be in a situation where I felt the only way to draw national attention to the shit I was going through in the hopes of spurring any sort of change.

Actually, forget it. I'm getting baited into political ranting now.

I'm done here for the night.

I'll try to keep it to less politically-related topics next time I feel the need to vent.

LumenSageAlexander said:
So you're saying that racial prejudice on the part of police officers is a valid reason to shoot someone without even attempting to de-escalate a situation, viciously beat a teenage girl for having the gall to not be 100% polite, or take someone into holding where they 'mysteriously' end up dead?

What I'm saying is places with higher crime rates are going to have more police patrolling it than places with lower crime rates. The racial makeup of that place's residents has no bearing on this.

LumenSageAlexander said:
Better question: How much property damage was actually incurred in the Ferguson "riots"?

Several fires, smashed windows, vehicle damage, several stores looted...

LumenSageAlexander said:
Followup question: How much of that damage was incurred in black-owned businesses that Ferguson residents wouldn't have anything to gain from damaging?

Rioters often don't discriminate and smash for the sake of smashing. Whether they had anything to gain from doing it doesn't change the fact that they are in the wrong for doing it and only made themselves look worse than before.

LumenSageAlexander said:
To answer YOUR question, just so you don't try to accuse me of deflecting: If I was personally in the situation that they were in, I would probably be participating in said 'riots.' Because I would be in a situation where I felt the only way to draw national attention to the shit I was going through in the hopes of spurring any sort of change.

You did deflect. The question is whether you would still be okay with a riot if you were the victim of it.

BlueDingo said:
You did deflect. The question is whether you would still be okay with a riot if you were the victim of it.

'Kay, fine. I did deflect.

But I'm not interested in debating the rightness or wrongness of riots without the context of what caused people to be angry enough to feel that they needed to riot.

The answer of whether or not I'd be okay with being the victim of a riot is so obvious that you're banking on my answer so you can call me a hypocrite, which is what your whole argument is leading to.

But this entire time I've been trying to drive home the importance of NUANCE in casting judgement, which is what you seem to be refusing to acknowledge.

(Aside from the presence of massive racism and bigotry involved in the situations.)

So, yeah. I'm basically done arguing with someone whose only interest in this is trying to find some hole in my arguments to attack me with, especially when they're so busy ignoring everything that CONSTITUTES my arguments.

Lesson learned: Don't debate social issues on a furry porn site.

LumenSageAlexander said:
First off, none spring directly to mind. I was just trying to get Inanna to stop throwing around 'breaking the law' as if it were inherently an insult. It's not. The law protects peace and order, not necessarily justice.

I didn't use "breaking the law" as an insult. I used "breaking the law" as a way of showing you that you don't get to hit people just because they have an opinion you don't like. It's not an insult to call you a criminal if you assault someone, it's simply a statement of fact. If you assault someone, you are a criminal, and no amount of screaming "but his beliefs are offensive to meeee" is ever going to change that.

His beliefs are offensive to me, too, but that doesn't give me the right to beat the crap out of him. You can hate the man, you can despise the man, but your rights end where his nose begins, buddy. You are no more above the law than I am.

InannaEloah said:
I didn't use "breaking the law" as an insult. I used "breaking the law" as a way of showing you that you don't get to hit people just because they have an opinion you don't like. It's not an insult to call you a criminal if you assault someone, it's simply a statement of fact. If you assault someone, you are a criminal, and no amount of screaming "but his beliefs are offensive to meeee" is ever going to change that.

His beliefs are offensive to me, too, but that doesn't give me the right to beat the crap out of him. You can hate the man, you can despise the man, but your rights end where his nose begins, buddy. You are no more above the law than I am.

I'm beyond done sharing my beliefs about this stuff here, personally, but just so you know, I addressed that, too, not long ago in this thread.

If you have any further opinions, though, I won't be responding to them here.

LumenSageAlexander said:
I'm beyond done sharing my beliefs about this stuff here, personally, but just so you know, I addressed that, too, not long ago in this thread.

If you have any further opinions, though, I won't be responding to them here.

Of course you won't be responding to them here, because your argument doesn't hold up under scrutiny. You're just as bad, if not worse, than that Neo-Nazi you condemn, and you give people like him fuel for the fire they're building. You don't want him advocating violence, yet you yourself advocate it. You can dish it out but you can't take it.

Right. Believe what you want, I'm just tired of shouting at brick walls and don't want to bring the banhammer down on my head over this shit.

When I see people arguing in my topic. I'm too lazy to stop it though... I'm angry at myself now.

Social Justice Warriors, Political Correctness, Modern Feminists, Black Lives Matter, Fat Acceptance, Safe Spaces, and Trigger Warnings just to name a few.

Bluebottles. The little bastards wash up on the shore and just lie there like little venomous landmines.

kimjoy said:
Social Justice Warriors, Political Correctness, Modern Feminists, Black Lives Matter, Fat Acceptance, Safe Spaces, and Trigger Warnings just to name a few.

agreed

edit: the war on words

this is pissing me off. i don't give a F if it offends these people. you people are NOT going to start dictating what i can or cannot say!

F this idiotic war on words BS.

Joseph_Joestar said:
Whats so awful about trigger warnings :/?

Real life has no trigger warnings. Being a depressed single guy myself I get "triggered" or really depressed when I see couples in public enjoying themselves knowing I don't have that and never experienced it and the scary reality that I may never will. I envy them and get feel terrible but I have to suck it up and move on. I get miserable at work seeing all these happy couples while I have nothing and no-one thanks to my social anxiety and depression.

If I had trigger warnings and safe spaces where I didn't have to see that I'd never improve myself and will probably be a miserable person forever. I'd be nice not to see that shit every day or have some kind of warning or real life blacklist on couples but life doesn't work they way.

I'm trying to get better and for the most part I have and I wouldn't be this far with safe spaces and trigger warnings.

kimjoy said:
I get "triggered" or really depressed

That's not being triggered.

treos said:
agreed

edit: the war on words

this is pissing me off. i don't give a F if it offends these people. you people are NOT going to start dictating what i can or cannot say!

F this idiotic war on words BS.

Like I said before, language policing.

People who think that Dragon Ball Z is better than the clearly superior original series

When people cry BLACKFAEC!!!1! every time they see a character with a black face or when someone darkens their skin tone for any reason whatsoever, even accidentally. If it's not this, it's not blackface.

Yet strangely, no complaints over this or this.

Fenrick said:
People who think that Dragon Ball Z is better than the clearly superior original series

And the censorship.

Fenrick said:
original series

<3

BlueDingo said:
Like I said before, language policing.

It's still wrong and unrealistic. Sure we don't want people going around spouting the most racist things ever but we also don't want to limit our vocabulary or be told what to say and not say.

kimjoy said:
It's still wrong and unrealistic. Sure we don't want people going around spouting the most racist things ever but we also don't want to limit our vocabulary or be told what to say and not say.

Of course, that's why I'm against it. No word should be put off-limits no matter how rude, offensive, disgusting, delicious or triggering it is. Using offensive language and being offensive are two different things. You can use the former without doing the latter and do the latter without using the former. It's one of the things many americans don't get about australians, how they can say offensive things to each other all the time and not get offended when they do it. Many still can't handle the idea of cunt, bastard, etc. being used as compliments.

BlueDingo said:
When people cry BLACKFAEC!!!1! every time they see a character with a black face or when someone darkens their skin tone for any reason whatsoever, even accidentally. If it's not this, it's not blackface.

Yet strangely, no complaints over this or this.

And the censorship.

Anime censorship for the PC police lol. That and 4Kids, they never should have existed, glad they're bankrupt.

What makes me angry? When people go on half-assed downvote sprees for no reason, even when the art is good.

BlueDingo said:
And the censorship.

alternative article title: 15 reasons why subbed anime beats dubbed anime.

no, really, i've found subbed anime to be less censored and the scripts to be much less dumbed down when it comes to subbed vs dubbed. with how they dumb down and simplify things for western audiences when dubbing anime, i doubt i could bear watching DBS past the first 3 episodes. true, Super has gone in something of a different direction from Z but it's not all bad.

super isn't as bad as kai at least. :/ after having watched DBZ off and on since i was a kid. Kai was like watching a completely butchered form of Z. some of us don't mind the filler content as long as it doesn't suck too badly.

oh and regarding the nudity thing. well, they didn't censor baby broly and baby kakarot in the DBZ movie: Broly, the legendary super saiyan. and that's even in the dubbed version though i suppose they would have done so if it aired on tv again.

treos said:
alternative article title: 15 reasons why subbed anime beats dubbed anime.

no, really, i've found subbed anime to be less censored and the scripts to be much less dumbed down when it comes to subbed vs dubbed. with how they dumb down and simplify things for western audiences when dubbing anime, i doubt i could bear watching DBS past the first 3 episodes. true, Super has gone in something of a different direction from Z but it's not all bad.

super isn't as bad as kai at least. :/ after having watched DBZ off and on since i was a kid. Kai was like watching a completely butchered form of Z. some of us don't mind the filler content as long as it doesn't suck too badly.

oh and regarding the nudity thing. well, they didn't censor baby broly and baby kakarot in the DBZ movie: Broly, the legendary super saiyan. and that's even in the dubbed version though i suppose they would have done so if it aired on tv again.

At least uncut dubs of DB, DBZ and DBGT exist.

I can tolerate subbed anime if there's no dubbed version available but I don't like trying to watch the onscreen action and read the text at the same time. I'd rather hear what they're saying and watch what they're doing, not watch both.

Watching Excel Saga subbed is a real pain. Little Miss Motormouth (Excel) talks way too fast.

Joseph_Joestar said:
these, my friend, are trigger warnings.

AAAAHHHH!!! Gambling!

Actually, they're not there to protect the easily triggered. They are there to let consumers know what types of content is present so they can determine whether the content is suitable for viewing. In many cases, the labels are shorthand for "don't let kids watch it".

Magpies. The agro bastards swoop at you every time you go anywhere near their nests.

Edit: Apparently mine aren't the same as yours. Do yours swoop?

Joseph_Joestar said:
Dude. That is not being triggered in any shape or form. Being triggered is that when you experience shit like paranoia, panick attacks, flashbacks etc in certain situations that remind of traumatic past events. You have no place in comparing your experiences as miserable single to actually traumatized person's experiences. Also in case you didnt know, its highly unadviced to force traumatized people in situations that trigger them in situations that are uncontrolled and unmonitored by professionals because it can make things much worse.

Also 1. in case you were not aware, internet exists in real world. 2. these, my friend, are trigger warnings.

hmmm... i wonder how many students in the US school system alone require trigger warnings at school for legitimate reasons and not SJW reasons.

i'm glad this BS never happened when i was in school. or if it did, not to the crippling extent that it does nowadays.

school nowadays is so screwed up it's just ridiculous. what was that article... ah, here it is. removing difficult equations and replacing them with essay questions in exams to make high school physics more appealing to girls. yeah...dumbing things down and making them easier in the education system is not an improvement.

i'm just really glad my time in school ended before 2000-2015+. before the school system got so F'ed up overall.

i wonder how much they've dumbed down and made things in college easier over time.

Joseph_Joestar said:
Dude. That is not being triggered in any shape or form. Being triggered is that when you experience shit like paranoia, panick attacks, flashbacks etc in certain situations that remind of traumatic past events. You have no place in comparing your experiences as miserable single to actually traumatized person's experiences. Also in case you didnt know, its highly unadviced to force traumatized people in situations that trigger them in situations that are uncontrolled and unmonitored by professionals because it can make things much worse.

Also 1. in case you were not aware, internet exists in real world. 2. these, my friend, are trigger warnings.

I've seen fat people say that they're Triggered whenever they hear someone praising another person for how much weight they lost or something similar making them feel aweful and useless. To me triggered means that something has caused you to feel and react in a negative way more so than regular. Your trigger might be more intense but it's something you're going to have to deal with in the real world and that's my point. Sure I get depressed when seeing happy couples but I have to learn to deal with it and improve myself to one day not feel that way anymore.

I'm sure to you and many others my experience seems exaggerated and not as big of a concern as it should be but trust me it's bad. Depression and loneliness are a terrible combination. Just because your bar for triggered is set so high doesn't make my experience any less grim.

kimjoy said:
I think trigger warnings are annoying so I'm going to make up my own definition of what 'triggered' is that completely ignores medical definitions in order to pretend I get triggered, so that I can shame you for feeling the need to have trigger warnings.

Also I don't care that you were literally almost murdered and go into actual survival-crisis mode when something passingly reminds you of that situation, I'm trying to make a point about whiners, okay?

Fixed that for you.

LumenSageAlexander said:
Fixed that for you.

Well, there's one way to make people hate you.

BlueDingo said:
Well, there's one way to make people hate you.

If someone's gonna pull bullshit out of their ass about what being triggered is in order to shame and silence people for wanting to not be driven into a full-on survivalistic panic-attack for no good reason, I don't honestly give a shit what they think of me.

Triggers are a symptom of serious psychological problems that need to be addressed by trained professional. Even professional exposure therapists will tell you that desensitizing therapy has to be done under controlled conditions with the patient's consent or else it's just further stressing the patient with no real benefit.

LumenSageAlexander said:
If someone's gonna pull bullshit out of their ass about what being triggered is in order to shame and silence people for wanting to not be driven into a full-on survivalistic panic-attack for no good reason, I don't honestly give a shit what they think of me.

Triggers are a symptom of serious psychological problems that need to be addressed by trained professional. Even professional exposure therapists will tell you that desensitizing therapy has to be done under controlled conditions with the patient's consent or else it's just further stressing the patient with no real benefit.

Oh, I see. It's okay for SJWs to redefine words but when anyone else does it, they're "pulling bullshit out of their ass".

BlueDingo said:
Oh, I see. It's okay for SJWs to redefine words but when anyone else does it, they're "pulling bullshit out of their ass".

"SJWs" never redefined the meaning of the word 'triggered.' Kids who had just been exposed to the term used it out of context because they were angry at insensitive jerks and then assholes who hated the kids more than the jerks started using it as an insult without thinking of the consequences for people who actually experienced the problem they were making fun of.

People throw around the word 'SJWs' as a pejorative without even realizing it's not a single, official, unified movement at all; It's a lot of different people with different goals, different problems, and different perspectives who all just want insensitive jerks to stop treating them like trash and telling them they'd better enjoy it or else.

LumenSageAlexander said:
"SJWs" never redefined the meaning of the word 'triggered.'

No, but they've attempted to redefine a lot of other words. Racism comes to mind. The "power + privilege" bit only exists because SJWs tried to put it there.

LumenSageAlexander said:
Kids who had just been exposed to the term used it out of context because they were angry at insensitive jerks...

You mean like the feminist who claimed she got PTSD from Twitter and threatened to end the careers of any war veterans with actual PTSD if they said she didn't have it? Or all the trans people who get #triggered every time you don't call them "ze"? Or all the feminists who got #triggered when they saw this?

LumenSageAlexander said:
People throw around the word 'SJWs' as a pejorative without even realizing it's not a single, official, unified movement at all; It's a lot of different people with different goals, different problems, and different perspectives who all just want insensitive jerks to stop treating them like trash and telling them they'd better enjoy it or else.

No one ever calls SJW a movement. Social Justice is the movement, Social Justice Warriors are people within the movement. Also, your side tends to say "enjoy it or else" a lot as well.

LumenSageAlexander said:
"SJWs" never redefined the meaning of the word 'triggered.'

lol bullshit! what doesn't "trigger" SJWs?

Another thing that angers me: Those who consider themselves good people while wishing harm on others and reveling in their pain.

BlueDingo said:
No, but they've attempted to redefine a lot of other words. Racism comes to mind. The "power + privilege" bit only exists because SJWs tried to put it there.

Address the subject at hand. Whatever your views of racism, 'triggered' is an actual MEDICAL term that's NOT open for debate.

BlueDingo said:
You mean like the feminist who claimed she got PTSD from Twitter and threatened to end the careers of any war veterans with actual PTSD if they said she didn't have it? Or all the trans people who get #triggered every time you don't call them "ze"? Or all the feminists who got #triggered when they saw this abuse terminology for their own benefit! More at twelve!

You think this is a new phenomenon? You think any of that justifies throwing people who live with PTSD under the bus by destroying the meaning of the word that actually describes what they live with and then flaunting it back at them like you guys just did to Joestar to try to silence him?

BlueDingo said:
No one ever calls SJW a movement. Social Justice is the movement, Social Justice Warriors are people within the movement. Also, your side tends to say "enjoy it or else" a lot as well.

Again. Not unified. Not a movement.

It's a SERIES of groups of people who are pissed off for different but related reasons. And people gave US the name. The only reason I actually call myself an SJW is because peoples' reaction to it tends to tell me a lot about them very early on.

treos said:
lol bullshit! what doesn't "trigger" SJWs?

Just because a trigger doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it's not valid.

I had a person JUST like you get on my case because I stood up for someone who was triggered by water, but he shut the hell up REALLY fast when I reminded him that DROWNING is a thing that can happen to people.

Someone else I know is triggered by jello. You might think that's silly and comical. But they're triggered by it because the circumstance that traumatized them landed them in the hospital, and jello is hospital food.

It's nobody's fucking job to justify their fucking triggers to you. This world is fucked, shit happens, get the fuck over it and let people recover at their own fucking pace.

LumenSageAlexander said:
This world is fucked, shit happens, get the fuck over it.

That's a very anti-sjw thing to say.

BlueDingo said:
That's a very anti-sjw thing to say.

Remember what I said last time we had an argument.

Context is key.

LumenSageAlexander said:
Remember what I said last time we had an argument.

Context is key.

You mean the argument where you said destroying innocent people's property is okay if you think you have a good reason to do it?

BlueDingo said:
You mean the argument where you said destroying innocent people's property is okay if you think you have a good reason to do it?

You must get a good excersize moving goal-posts around.

Speaking of which, don't think I didn't notice you deflecting the racism-by-cops issue. You said that 'historically high levels of violence is not a bullshit reason' when I was talking about cops killing black people as a first resort. You all but admitted that racial bias is a factor, but when I called you on it you pretended to be talking about where police patrol more thickly. Even if that WAS innocent, high police presence does not excuse lethal force as an early resort. Police are held to a HIGHER standard than normal people because they're trained and allowed to carry weapons.

LumenSageAlexander said:
You must get a good excersize moving goal-posts around.

Speaking of which, don't think I didn't notice you deflecting the racism-by-cops issue. You said that 'historically high levels of violence is not a bullshit reason' when I was talking about cops killing black people as a first resort. You all but admitted that racial bias is a factor, but when I called you on it you pretended to be talking about where police patrol more thickly. Even if that WAS innocent, high police presence does not excuse lethal force as an early resort. Police are held to a HIGHER standard than normal people because they're trained and allowed to carry weapons.

Aren't there statistics showing more whites are killed by cops than blacks? Also don't blacks commit more of the crimes? I believe it was something along the lines of despite being a minority they commit a over 50% of violent crimes. Wouldn't that give cops more of a reason to be more cautious around blacks? Sure real racist cops are bad and all but the biggest threat to black people are other black people.

LumenSageAlexander said:
Just because a trigger doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it's not valid.

there's a reason it's called generation snowflake.

This world is fucked, shit happens, get the fuck over it and let people recover at their own fucking pace.

that applies equally to you SJWs as it does the rest of the world.

Jesus Christ.

Thanks for reminding me why I decided to stop actually saying shit here.

Bye.

Yeah don't edit things people say just to pull some half-baked point out of your ass. If you think you have to resort to such a thing, your argument is crap.

kimjoy said:
Aren't there statistics showing more whites are killed by cops than blacks? Also don't blacks commit more of the crimes? I believe it was something along the lines of despite being a minority they commit a over 50% of violent crimes. Wouldn't that give cops more of a reason to be more cautious around blacks? Sure real racist cops are bad and all but the biggest threat to black people are other black people.

Everything you said is bullshit. According to the FBI Crime Statistics, in 2013, out of 9,014,635 people arrested, 68% were white while only 28% were black. Whites lead the following crime categories: Rape, Aggravated Assault, Burglary, Larceny-theft, Motor vehicle theft, Arson, Violent Crime, Property Crime, Other Assaults, Forgery and Counterfeiting, Fraud, Embezzlement, Stolen Property, Vandalism, Weapons, Prostitution and commercialized vice, Sex offenses (except rape and prostitution), Drug Abuse violations, Offenses against the family and children, DUI, Liquor Laws, Drunkenness, Disorderly Conduct, Vagrancy, All other offenses except traffic, Suspicion, and Curfew and Loitering law violations.

Meanwhile, blacks only lead in the following categories: Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, Robbery, and Gambling.

(Source: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-43)

Sounds to me that cops should be more cautious around whites.

Please do your research before making false claims, thanks.

Ratte said:
Yeah don't edit things people say just to pull some half-baked point out of your ass. If you think you have to resort to such a thing, your argument is crap.

That really sounds like an excuse to ignore my argument itself due to my being impolite. (Not trying to be a dick, just pointing out that entirely dismissing an argument because of the way part of it is presented isn't intellectually honest.)

That said, point taken about not editing peoples' posts in my quotes. I won't do it again.

Waba_Grill said:
Everything you said is bullshit. According to the FBI Crime Statistics, in 2013, out of 9,014,635 people arrested, 68% were white while only 28% were black. Whites lead the following crime categories: Rape, Aggravated Assault, Burglary, Larceny-theft, Motor vehicle theft, Arson, Violent Crime, Property Crime, Other Assaults, Forgery and Counterfeiting, Fraud, Embezzlement, Stolen Property, Vandalism, Weapons, Prostitution and commercialized vice, Sex offenses (except rape and prostitution), Drug Abuse violations, Offenses against the family and children, DUI, Liquor Laws, Drunkenness, Disorderly Conduct, Vagrancy, All other offenses except traffic, Suspicion, and Curfew and Loitering law violations.

Meanwhile, blacks only lead in the following categories: Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, Robbery, and Gambling.

(Source: //ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-43)

Sounds to me that cops should be more cautious around whites.

Please do your research before making false claims, thanks.

question, how does that work out when you also take into account the % of the population made up of black people vs white people? if your gonna make any claim about one ethnicity doing a disproportionate amount of crimes in a country then you need to include what % of the population the ethnic groups your comparing make up.

treos said:
question, how does that work out when you also take into account the % of the population made up of black people vs white people? if your gonna make any claim about one ethnicity doing a disproportionate amount of crimes in a country then you need to include what % of the population the ethnic groups your comparing make up.

Isn't America ~13% black?

BlueDingo said:
Isn't America ~13% black?

so if theres ~70% white doing ~68% of the crime and ~13% black doing ~28% of the crime...

that would mean black people commit at least twice as many crimes as white people when taking the population percentage into account. it just seems like white people do more as the number is spread across a larger % of the overall population.

Waba_Grill said:
Everything you said is bullshit. According to the FBI Crime Statistics, in 2013, out of 9,014,635 people arrested, 68% were white while only 28% were black. Whites lead the following crime categories: Rape, Aggravated Assault, Burglary, Larceny-theft, Motor vehicle theft, Arson, Violent Crime, Property Crime, Other Assaults, Forgery and Counterfeiting, Fraud, Embezzlement, Stolen Property, Vandalism, Weapons, Prostitution and commercialized vice, Sex offenses (except rape and prostitution), Drug Abuse violations, Offenses against the family and children, DUI, Liquor Laws, Drunkenness, Disorderly Conduct, Vagrancy, All other offenses except traffic, Suspicion, and Curfew and Loitering law violations.

Meanwhile, blacks only lead in the following categories: Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, Robbery, and Gambling.

(Source: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-43)

Sounds to me that cops should be more cautious around whites.

Please do your research before making false claims, thanks.

My sources:https://goo.gl/mBsIjY https://youtu.be/5bbrqaeDe4w

When people even CONSIDER using shock collars on dogs! My fucking parents were discussing it. I speak up, and they tell me to mind my own business. Am I the only one that cares about the dog?

HypnoBitch said:
When people even CONSIDER using shock collars on dogs! My fucking parents were discussing it. I speak up, and they tell me to mind my own business. Am I the only one that cares about the dog?

wouldn't those be considered animal abuse since they'd clearly be causing whatever was wearing them pain?

HypnoBitch said:
When people even CONSIDER using shock collars on dogs! My fucking parents were discussing it. I speak up, and they tell me to mind my own business. Am I the only one that cares about the dog?

While I have similar feelings about those tags, I can also understand that some folks might see such a tag as an effective way of protecting the dog. I've had the misfortune of seeing a dog get run over by a car, and I won't go into any details because it makes me emotional just thinking about it. But I will say that the dog's back was broken, had to be euthanized, and the driver of the automobile that ran him over just peeled out and drove away afterwards. The dog in question was obviously supposed to be inside a fenced yard and he had tags, but if he had just been placed in a new home or whatever or with a new family, dogs are loyal creatures and they'll do what they can to get back to their original family. Digging holes in fences and escaping is quite a common occurrence.

So all things considered, I'd much rather have someone using a shock collar on their dog than having them get run over by a '68 Impala and end up having to be killed to end its suffering.

kimjoy said:
My sources:https://goo.gl/mBsIjY https://youtu.be/5bbrqaeDe4w

Neither of your sources are credible. Your first source is from a conservative-biased website that relies on clickbait articles and ads to get viewers. Just like how Occupy Democrats is also not a credible source since it is liberal-biased. And the other is about a black man misunderstanding what BLM is about. How about going to BLM's actual website for facts about BLM. Also, just putting it out there because I see many white people assuming this, just because you see blacks rioting doesn't mean that they are part of BLM. That's just like saying every white Christian is part of the KKK because the members are white Christians. Stop generalizing.

treos said:
so if theres ~70% white doing ~68% of the crime and ~13% black doing ~28% of the crime...

that would mean black people commit at least twice as many crimes as white people when taking the population percentage into account. it just seems like white people do more as the number is spread across a larger % of the overall population.

That's not how statistics work. It's ironic how you say that I forgot to include the entire population of blacks and whites but yet you just concluded with false information without including the entire population of blacks and whites.

Here's how it works: According to the U.S. Census, in 2015, there are a total of 321,418,820 people in the US, 77.1% white, 13.3% black. 77.1% of 321,418,820 is the total of whites in the US, which is an estimate of 247,813,910 whites. 13.3% of the 321,418,820 is the total number of blacks in the US, which is an estimate of 42,748,703 blacks.

Now that you got the population of both blacks and whites, let's apply it to the crime statistics. There was a total of 9,014,635 people arrested in 2015. 6,214,197 of them are white, 2,549,655 of them are black.

9,014,635 out of 247,813,910 = 3.6% of the white population were arrested
2,549,655 out of 42,748,703 = 5.9% of the black population were arrested

That might sound like the end but it is not. Things like institutional racism, false arrests, officer quotas, profiling, etc exists. It is also proven that 70% of wrongful convictions were of people of color, 63% of them were black. So no, your claim "...black people commit at least twice as many crimes as white people..." is proven false.

Credible sources:
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-43
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/
http://www.innocenceproject.org/what-wrongful-convictions-teach-us-about-racial-inequality/

you say i was using false information. actually, i wasn't. i simply wasn't 100% accurate on the %'s. that doesn't mean what i said was false.

my point still stands. and that point is that black people do commit a disproportionately higher amount of crimes compared to white people.

treos said:
you say i was using false information. actually, i wasn't. i simply wasn't 100% accurate on the %'s. that doesn't mean what i said was false.

my point still stands. and that point is that black people do commit a disproportionately higher amount of crimes compared to white people.

did you fail to notice the part about how poc (especially black people) are much more likely to be falsely accused and arrested for crimes they did not do?

treos said:
you say i was using false information. actually, i wasn't. i simply wasn't 100% accurate on the %'s. that doesn't mean what i said was false.

my point still stands. and that point is that black people do commit a disproportionately higher amount of crimes compared to white people.

Did you not read what I posted? Everything I posted is all fact, not opinion. Your point is entirely disproven and wrong. The only thing that stands is your ignorance towards the truth.

Waba_Grill said:
There was a total of 9,014,635 people arrested in 2015. 6,214,197 of them are white, 2,549,655 of them are black.

9,014,635 out of 247,813,910 = 3.6% of the white population were arrested
2,549,655 out of 42,748,703 = 5.9% of the black population were arrested

You made a mistake. 6,214,197 out of 247,813,910 = 2.5% of the white population were arrested.

Waba_Grill said:
It is also proven that 70% of wrongful convictions were of people of color, 63% of them were black.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/what-wrongful-convictions-teach-us-about-racial-inequality/

That source is about whether a person's innocence can be proven via DNA testing. How is that reflective of actual rates of wrongful convictions? Do you have crime stats for wrongful convictions?

PS. The second source doesn't load on my end so I can't check that one.

BlueDingo said:
You made a mistake. 6,214,197 out of 247,813,910 = 2.5% of the white population were arrested.

Thank you for the correction. Crunching numbers can bring up errors at times.

That source is about whether a person's innocence can be proven via DNA testing. How is that reflective of actual rates of wrongful convictions? Do you have crime stats for wrongful convictions?

I was originally going to include it into my first post but I didn't want information overload to occur.

As for wrongful convictions:
Staying in 2015, 160 people were exonerated, 79 of them were black (The youngest being a 14 year old exonerated from a murder charge). 49.3% of the 160 wrongly convicted people were black. That is troubling imo. For a comparison, only 47 whites were wrongly convicted which is about 29.3% out of the 160.

So this proves that blacks are an estimated 20% more likely to get wrongly convicted than whites.

Source: https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/detaillist.aspx?View={FAF6EDDB-5A68-4F8F-8A52-2C61F5BF9EA7}&FilterField1=Exonerated&FilterValue1=8_2015

PS. The second source doesn't load on my end so I can't check that one.

The second source is just is just a quick chart from the US Census

You guys gonna keep arguing in here? <_< we're here to vent... Not argue

HypnoBitch said:
You guys gonna keep arguing in here? <_< we're here to vent... Not argue

If they want to keep going, I'll happily oblige. This is my way of venting, with raw, unbiased, and uncut truth.

Waba_Grill said:
Thank you for the correction. Crunching numbers can bring up errors at times.

I was originally going to include it into my first post but I didn't want information overload to occur.

As for wrongful convictions:
Staying in 2015, 160 people were exonerated, 79 of them were black (The youngest being a 14 year old exonerated from a murder charge). 49.3% of the 160 wrongly convicted people were black. That is troubling imo. For a comparison, only 47 whites were wrongly convicted which is about 29.3% out of the 160.

Source: https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/detaillist.aspx?View={FAF6EDDB-5A68-4F8F-8A52-2C61F5BF9EA7}&FilterField1=Exonerated&FilterValue1=8_2015

The 2015 data covers people convicted between 1977 and 2015 while the 2013 data only covers people convicted in 2013. Not a reliable comparison if all the data isn't from the same year.

But if we say fuck it and use the numbers anyway:

• 70.7% of 2.5% = 1.76% of the white population were positively convicted.
• 50.7% of 5.9% = 2.99% of the black population were positively convicted.

Note: First percentage is 100 minus the wrongful conviction percentages (29.3% white and 49.3% black) that you just provided. Second percentage is from earlier.

HypnoBitch said:
You guys gonna keep arguing in here? <_< we're here to vent... Not argue

They decided to keep venting with such contentious stuff. I wanted to just keep venting, too, but when people shout 'opinions' that directly disrespect your existance and the existance of your friends, it's hard to just keep quiet.

BlueDingo said:
The 2015 data covers people convicted between 1977 and 2015 while the 2013 data only covers people convicted in 2013. Not a reliable comparison if all the data isn't from the same year.

But if we say fuck it and use the numbers anyway:

• 70.7% of 2.5% = 1.76% of the white population were positively convicted.
• 50.7% of 5.9% = 2.99% of the black population were positively convicted.

Note: First percentage is 100 minus the wrongful conviction percentages (29.3% white and 49.3% black) that you just provided. Second percentage is from earlier.

Where are you getting 2013 data from? I'm providing statistics of people exonerated in the same year of 2015, which is what the source states. I am also not understanding where you got the 100 from.

Waba_Grill said:
Where are you getting 2013 data from? I'm providing statistics of people exonerated in the same year of 2015, which is what the source states. I am also not understanding where you got the 100 from.

The first set of data you provided which you used to get the 2.5% and 5.9% percentages came from Crime in the U.S. 2013 which displays data from 2013.

The 100 comes from subtracting percentages. If 49.3% of black people were wrongly convicted (according to the most recent source you provided) then 50.7% of them (100 - 49.3) were not wrongly convicted.

BlueDingo said:
The first set of data you provided which you used to get the 2.5% and 5.9% percentages came from Crime in the U.S. 2013 which displays data from 2013.

The 100 comes from subtracting percentages. If 49.3% of black people were wrongly convicted (according to the most recent source you provided) then 50.7% of them (100 - 49.3) were not wrongly convicted.

Okay, I see that now, but blacks are still the most wrongly convicted out of any other race in the US. An estimated 20% ahead of the group in second.

Waba_Grill said:
Okay, I see that now, but blacks are still the most wrongly convicted out of any other race in the US. An estimated 20% ahead of the group in second.

20 percentage points. It's more like 60% according to this data (49.3 is ~60% higher than 29.3).

You know what makes me angry, when I order a root beer and they give me a Pepsi. They look the same so I could not prepare myself for the surprise attack on my tastebuds. I was ready for root beer, why would they do this to me? What do I do to them? It's because I ordered root beer, huh? They all like "Eww, he likes root beer. Death to root beer lovers!" Like, I trusted them with my heart and they tore it up like paper. I can no longer trust my soda anymore. Why, oh goodness why, did they betray me? Why must they destroy my tender tastebuds? They can't take the abuse, they are innocent!

LumenSageAlexander said:
They decided to keep venting with such contentious stuff. I wanted to just keep venting, too, but when people shout 'opinions' that directly disrespect your existance and the existance of your friends, it's hard to just keep quiet.

Having an opinion that contradicts your opinion is NOT "disrespect" for your existence. This isn't a part of some grand conspiracy to piss you off the way you keep trying (and failing) to make everyone here think it is.

InannaEloah said:
Having an opinion that contradicts your opinion is NOT "disrespect" for your existence. This isn't a part of some grand conspiracy to piss you off the way you keep trying (and failing) to make everyone here think it is.

You're right, there is no conspiracy to piss me off. I never said there was. I just don't feel beholden to shut up like you seem to think I ought to.

And you're also right that having an opinion that contradicts mine is not disrespect for my existence.

However, contrary to your opinion, what pisses me off is not that people have contradictory opinions to mine. What pisses me off is that people have decided that I deserve to die for things I never had a say in.

You keep telling me to get it through my thick head that contradictory opinions don't justify me wanting to hurt people, and that's true.

YOU, however, don't understand that the 'opinions' that are getting under my skin are literally "I want to hurt you, and once I think enough people will look the other way, I have every intention to hurt you."

LumenSageAlexander said:
Blah Blah Blah

I understand what you're saying perfectly, it is you who are refusing to listen, not me.

I never said (or even implied) that you should shut up. You came up with that nonsense all by yourself. All I said was that you have no right to physically assault people for voicing the opinion that you don't want to hear. No matter how much you cry about how evil an opinion is, you don't have the right to hit someone for having an opinion, even if that opinion involves wanting you dead. When you hit him, you are the agressor, and he is the victim. You are the criminal, not him. And whether you like it or not, if you hit him you deserve to go to jail, and he doesn't.

This is the real world. You don't have to like it, but you most certainly DO have to follow its rules.

InannaEloah said:
I understand what you're saying perfectly, it is you who are refusing to listen, not me.

I never said (or even implied) that you should shut up. You came up with that nonsense all by yourself. All I said was that you have no right to physically assault people for voicing the opinion that you don't want to hear. No matter how much you cry about how evil an opinion is, you don't have the right to hit someone for having an opinion, even if that opinion involves wanting you dead. When you hit him, you are the agressor, and he is the victim. You are the criminal, not him. And whether you like it or not, if you hit him you deserve to go to jail, and he doesn't.

This is the real world. You don't have to like it, but you most certainly DO have to follow its rules.

It's not an opinion.

It's a threat.

It may be veiled, but poorly, and a veiled threat is still a threat.

You keep calling it an opinion. I don't think you know what an opinion fucking is at this rate.

You do know that surrounding a word with quotations is often used as an indicator of sarcasm, right?

Like for example: You 'totally' understand what an opinion is.

The fact that someone couches their call to action to literally murder you in the language of rhetoric does not change that it is a call to action to literally murder you.

TheHuskyK9 said:
You know what makes me angry, when I order a root beer and they give me a Pepsi. They look the same so I could not prepare myself for the surprise attack on my tastebuds. I was ready for root beer, why would they do this to me? What do I do to them? It's because I ordered root beer, huh? They all like "Eww, he likes root beer. Death to root beer lovers!" Like, I trusted them with my heart and they tore it up like paper. I can no longer trust my soda anymore. Why, oh goodness why, did they betray me? Why must they destroy my tender tastebuds? They can't take the abuse, they are innocent!

What the hell? Who does that?
I know that when out as a family we all order different sodas and the water often doesn't remember which one's which themselves, so what I do is if it isn't fizzing, I'll give it a few heavy taps to get it to start up, then give it a sniff.
But, like you said, there's no reason to expect that sort of thing when you're the only one with an order.