We could go on forever talking about how executions of one group of people will impact our society. What is the point exactly other than to make an assertion look utterly ridiculous?

Exactly what I thought when I heard Bill Bennet's statement.

Originally posted by dnamertz
Exactly what I thought when I heard Bill Bennet's statement.


Did you hear the entire statement? Have you ever listened to Morning in America? Or did you read or hear the bits and pieces from someone else?

Did you hear the entire statement? Have you ever listened to Morning in America? Or did you read or hear the bits and pieces from someone else?

I heard the entire statement. I understand the point he was making, but I just didn't like the linking of black people to crime in the vague way he did it. That is the part I thought was pointless.

Originally posted by dnamertz
I heard the entire statement. I understand the point he was making, but I just didn't like the linking of black people to crime in the vague way he did it. That is the part I thought was pointless.

I do not think it was vague at all.

I do not particularly like the statement, but darnit, he has the right to state fact, even an ugly one.

My brother (the marine) tells me all the time that he may not like what the media is saying about him or his country, but he will fight to the death to protect their right to say it.

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Program
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Special Report

Violent Victimization
and Race, 1993-98

Highlights

The rates at which black and white persons
experienced violent victimization were converging
between 1993 and 1998.

* In 1998, per 1,000 persons age 12 or older in
each racial group, 110 American Indians, 43 blacks,
38 whites, and 22 Asians were victims of violence.

* In each year from 1993 to 1997, black persons
were victimized at rates significantly greater than
those of whites. By 1998 black and white persons
were victimized overall at similar rates.

* The rate of violent victimization of whites fell
29% and of blacks fell 38%, 1993-98. Over the same
period no measurable change in the victimization
rates of American Indians or Asians occurred.

* From 1993 to 1998 violent crime in which the
race of the offender was known was largely
intraracial for whites (66%) and blacks (76%).
For American Indian and Asian victims, violent
crime was primarily interracial.

* From 1993 to 1998 higher percentages of black
(36%) and Asian (32%) victims than of white (24%)
and American Indian (28%) victims faced an armed
offender. Higher percentages of black (18%) and
Asian (14%) victims than of American Indian (9%)
and white (8%) victims faced an offender with a
firearm.

* 48% of the violence against blacks, 42% against
whites, 46% against American Indians, and 41%
against Asians were reported to the police,
1993-98.

* Blacks were disproportionately represented among
homicide victims. In 1998, 4 whites, 23 blacks, and
3 persons of other races (Asians and American
Indians considered together) were murdered per
100,000 persons in each group.

* On average each year between 1993 and 1998,
homicide rates fell 5% for whites, 7% for blacks,
and 8% for persons of other races.

Originally posted by Mr. Shaman
Bill Bennett: "You could abort every black baby in this country (http://mediamatters.org/items/200509280006), and your crime rate would go down."

;)

He's not a racist- which is what really counts

Ok - FT, so taking your "intraracial" statistics, 76% of blacks commit violence against those of their own race. Couple this with the 36% of black victims facing an armed offender (this offender is 76% most likely to be black) AND the fact that the homicide rates of blacks was significantly higher than those of whites or other races brings me to this conclusion:

Blacks commit MORE violence against Blacks and do so while being armed, even to the extent of murdering their own.

The statistics that you posted as well as the information that I posted earlier lead me to believe that perhaps Bennett's statements weren't that far off. I'm not saying they were PC, but as Prae said - a Spade is a Spade.

Originally posted by saycricket
Ok - FT, so taking your "intraracial" statistics, 76% of blacks commit violence against those of their own race. Couple this with the 36% of black victims facing an armed offender (this offender is 76% most likely to be black) AND the fact that the homicide rates of blacks was significantly higher than those of whites or other races brings me to this conclusion:

Blacks commit MORE violence against Blacks and do so while being armed, even to the extent of murdering their own.

The statistics that you posted as well as the information that I posted earlier lead me to believe that perhaps Bennett's statements weren't that far off. I'm not saying they were PC, but as Prae said - a Spade is a Spade.
You beat me to the punch, Cricket. That's exactly what I thought when I read his post. Oh, and BTW, it's good to have you back. :)

Originally posted by saycricket
I'm not saying they were PC, but as Prae said - a Spade is a Spade.

That is the best summary of this entire debate.

Be warned-

If you are going to throw statistics around or even insert them into your argument, be prepared that someone will do more extensive research with your number, and may come to a conclusion you overlooked. :)

You guys are doing a great job of ignoring the point I just made.

It's true that if we executed all republicans we could stop wars.

Diva then replied with something about democrats which was also true.

But the fact that she replied with something about democrats proves that my statement and her response to it was inherently partisan.

The same thing can be applied to beenets statement. Yes what he said is true but it is also true for whites. It was an inherently racist comment.

The book Freakonomics says absolutly nothing about race. It merely says the fewer unwanted babies brought into low income houses the lower the crime rate because the higher the 'prosperity'.

But hey go ahead and keep defending racism. It's funny. Especially from a mexican.

I hate PC BS. This is not such. His comment was racist.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
You guys are doing a great job of ignoring the point I just made.



Sorry if you are not getting the attention you feel that you deserve. You posted something partisan, and I posted something partisan to demonstrate how ridiculous it is.

No way! What I said was non-partisan because it was true so there.
:thumbs:

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Yes what he said is true but it is also true for whites. It was an inherently racist comment.
For argument's sake, let's look at the situation a little more closely, and try to reach a reasonable conclusion.

For example:

Just because a Boeing 747 can crash doesn't mean it's had anywhere near the failure record of the DC-10. If were talking about crashes, then hands down, the Boeing is a much safer plane, period. So much so, that's almost to the tune of 4 to 1. Now if we're going to talk about danger in the airline industry, then why would I site the 747 as an example when the DC-10 is 80% more likely to crash? If you were carrying on a logical conversation with someone about airline safety, then why pick an obscure example? Is that really a good way to make a point? Bill Bennett could have left it at "financially disadvantaged", but my argument is, and has been the entire time, that blacks, on whole, are poorer than whites. Their criminal records speak for themselves. His example was totally apt. It fit the criteria in every possible way, but I guess it was too directed for the likes of you, Dna and FT. Knowing this, does it really make it inappropriate to say? I don't believe it does, and in short, I think you people are grossly overreacting. If, in the book "Freakonomics", it didn't specifically use blacks as an example, then fine, I understand your point, but does it really invalidate what he said, or make his point moot? I don't think so...

Since when do we have to walk on eggshells when stating facts in this country? Is that really what it comes down to?
Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
I hate PC BS.
Are you sure about that???
Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
No way! What I said was non-partisan because it was true so there.
How profoundly astute and clever that statement was...

Originally posted by saycricket

Blacks commit MORE violence against Blacks and do so while being armed, even to the extent of murdering their own.

No argument from me. I was not posting the stats (unlike what the Mexican posting here seems to have assumed) to refute or deny how many crimes blacks commit.....but simply to put the statistics out in the open where we can all be on the same page.

Originally posted by saycricket
The statistics that you posted as well as the information that I posted earlier lead me to believe that perhaps Bennett's statements weren't that far off.

And I would, again, say that you're right.

I have ---from my first post to this topic-- said that Bennett was NOT advocating black babies being aborted.

I DID say however, and still believe, that Bennett was just getting in a cheap shot at the *prone-to-commit-crimes* "colored folk" because so many among the Conservative faction in this country just LOVE to hear Black America being publicly exposed to ridicule or scorn (whether deserved or not is another question) by one of their Rightwing heroes like Bennett....or Buchanan....or Duke....or Helms....or whoever.

Bennett could have launched a VERY successful run for Governor or Senator in most any of the Southern states immediately after such a remark.........the racists in the South ADORE hearing such statements bandied about on teevee.

Originally posted by Freethinker
I was not posting the stats (unlike what the Mexican posting here seems to have assumed) to refute or deny how many crimes blacks commit.....




Now, see by your thought process, I could determine that since you referred to me as "the Mexican" instead of my screenname or just simply "N", then I could deduce that you are a racist or at least making race a point of contention between us.


Good thing I do not think in those terms. :)

Now, see by your thought process, I could determine that since you referred to me as "the Mexican" instead of my screenname or just simply "N", then I could deduce that you are a racist or at least making race a point of contention between us.

Yea, i thought that was fishy when he used the term "the mexican". :D

Originally posted by Divalatina
Now, see by your thought process, I could determine that since you referred to me as "the Mexican" instead of my screenname or just simply "N", then I could deduce that you are a racist or at least making race a point of contention between us.

Buuu.....buuuu........bbbbbu.....buuuu....buuuuut. ..........I thought everyone here had said again and again and again (per Bennett's example) that simply stating facts was in NO way to be construed as "racist"...?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?


See how that works?!?!?

ROTFL.

Originally posted by Divalatina



Good thing I do not think in those terms. :)


Please quote all relevant points. Thanks.

Originally posted by Divalatina
Please quote all relevant points. Thanks.

My reply was more aimed at Evakian (and all the other people here) who had previously taken the position that "Hey, Bennett was only stating what was so, there was no racism in saying it"

Originally posted by Freethinker
My reply was more aimed at Evakian (and all the other people here) who had previously taken the position that "Hey, Bennett was only stating what was so, there was no racism in saying it"


If you would have said something that made my race relevant, then it might not have been perceived as "fishy", but that is just my opinion. I obviously have no issue with my race and welcome you to make your own assumptions or assertions as to how it affects my position.

Originally posted by Divalatina
If you would have said something that made my race relevant, then it might not have been perceived as "fishy", but that is just my opinion.

What?!?!?!?!?!?

After your previously stated position here, I simply cannot imagine what *relevance* needed to be attached to the word *Mexican* for it not to seem fishy.......

....after all, hasn't this whole discussion been a refutation of the claim (by some who took offense to Bennett's remark) that Bennett's use of *blacks* as an example was "fishy"......????

If Bennett was "simply stating a fact".......then why is it not also true that i was "simply stating a fact"......???

I was trying to make a POINT by using the word.

And I think I have.

When people use words--- as i did with "Mexican" and Bennett did with "blacks"----- it implies to those listening a certain mindset on the part of the person USING that particular word in that way......a word that in and of itself has NO negative import, but when used in certain situations and in certain remarrks is viewed quite diffferently

Several of you here have been adamant in denying it---up till NOW.

Using black in his statement was relevant as BLACKS to contribute in large part to our crime rate compared to their population. Black was relevant to his statement.

The Mexican says blah blah blah as no relevance.

You have not made any grand point or disproven any point that has been made in this thread.

BTW- If Bill would have used illegal Mexican immigrants in his statement, I would not have been offended at all, because darnnit, it would be true!

;)

Originally posted by Divalatina
Using black in his statement was relevant as BLACKS to contribute in large part to our crime rate compared to their population. Black was relevant to his statement.

Yet he could have used ANY race and been correct.

Originally posted by Divalatina
You have not made any grand point ....

In noting the fact that I made NO claim to have made a *grand point*...........what relevance did the word *grand* have in that comment...??

Originally posted by Divalatina
BTW- If Bill would have used illegal Mexican immigrants in his statement, I would not have been offended at all....

I believe you.

You probably would have not thought it racist either.

After all, it would have been SO "relevant" to a discussion of abortion, just as the *blacks commit the most crimes* inference was.

Sorry this discussion has been reduced to such mincing of words. A fellow poster (Brooks I think) said something along the lines of: if you have to exaggerate my point, you have already given up, or something like that. Your last post was a great demonstration.

And by "great", I mean you proved the point in a great fashion. Have a good night. :(

Originally posted by Divalatina
Sorry this discussion has been reduced to such mincing of words.

Oh....yes.

I see what you mean.

Like when the *mincing* first began over the use of the word *Mexican*.

Right?

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Have whatever kind of night you would have had minus any comment you read on the internet.

You had to draw me back in. I am a sucker. When we are having a discussion about the relevance of race to a statement, and then you use a racial term with no relevance to your own statement, then it is not mincing of words.

I digress. Freethinker, practice makes perfect. And you know the only reason I even mentioned the fact that you said "the mexican" was to illustrate how utterly harmless (regardless of its relevance) is.

I AM A MEXICAN! IT IS OK TO SAY IT. I AM PROBABLY DIFFERENT THAN YOU IN TERMS OF CULTURAL, EDUCATION, AND VALUES. I AM FINE WITH THAT.

Did you listen to the entire conversation? You really don't have a leg to stand on when you jump to conclusions.


Originally posted by Freethinker
In defense of Mr Bennett, he clearly stated that to abort every black baby would be ""an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do"".

So he was NOT endorsing abortion.

Everyone knows BibleGod don't like abortions, and Bill Bennett is a huge lover of all things BibleGod, so he would NEVER say or do anything "immoral" or unethical. Like gambling away a small fortune while constantly harping on the terrible "moral" character of the people in the US.

Bennett was probably just making sure --as all gawd-fearin' Rightwingers love to do-- to insert the point that it's really the n*ggers who are most responsible for crime in this country.

______________________________

Conservatism; -- the systematic scapegoating of blacks, peace activists, environmentalists, homosexuals and atheists in the belief that it will in some magic way save the country.

I AM A MEXICAN! IT IS OK TO SAY IT.

Okay, you're mexican. *phew* glad i got that off my chest. ;)

I AM PROBABLY DIFFERENT THAN YOU IN TERMS OF CULTURAL, EDUCATION, AND VALUES.

I doubt such conclusions you've made.

I AM FINE WITH THAT.

Welcome to enjoying your individuality, have fun with your American experience. Wish you the best of luck when you're in either country. Welcome to allforums. :)

Evakian, in all fairness, that post was in response to FT. I think I have indicated to you previously that you and I are probably not that far apart on many issues. :)

Originally posted by Divalatina

I AM A MEXICAN! IT IS OK TO SAY IT.

Yes.

I can tell how *ok* it is by the lack of fuss or commentary over it having been said.

What i find a bit odd, given the past few posts, is the hue and cry raised over *relevance* when this ENTIRE thread centers on the use of a word ---a phrase, a statement-- by a politician that had no particular relevance in the discussion that was taking place.

Originally posted by Divalatina
Now, see by your thought process, I could determine that since you referred to me as "the Mexican" instead of my screenname or just simply "N", then I could deduce that you are a racist or at least making race a point of contention between us.


Good thing I do not think in those terms. :)


This is a fuss?

See! See! This is how the whole Bennet hubbub got blown out of proportion. BWAHAHA :D

Originally posted by Evakian
See! See! This is how the whole Bennet hubbub got blown out of proportion. BWAHAHA :D

Exactamente!

Originally posted by Evakian
See! See! This is how the whole Bennet hubbub got blown out of proportion. BWAHAHA :D

It seems to me though that a couple of people here have been exposed as having reverted to the same position that earlier they were criticizing Bennett's critics for having -----i.e., "Hey, you used a certain word (or phrase or comment) when there was really no point in bringing it into the conversation in that way!"

Originally posted by Freethinker
It seems to me though that a couple of people here have been exposed as having reverted to the same position that earlier they were criticizing Bennett's critics for having -----i.e., "Hey, you used a certain word (or phrase or comment) when there was really no point in bringing it into the conversation in that way!"

You could look at it that way, or you could look at it how it was actually intended, to show you that I "could" be offended by what you said (if I used your logic), but I am not. As for the other poster who said it was fishy, well that is a whole other deal. I did not have a problem with you saying the "the Mexican" any more than I had with Bill's statement about blacks. Both are true.

I have a very difficult time understanding why someone would rather twist my words to mean something that would be affirm their own position, rather than simply admit there are two ways to look at a statement.

Originally posted by Divalatina
I did not have a problem with you saying the "the Mexican" any more than I had with Bill's statement about blacks. Both are true.

I have a very difficult time understanding why someone would rather twist my words to mean something that would be affirm their own position, rather than simply admit there are two ways to look at a statement. Perfect. I think the latter part of your statement refers to the fact that there is always someone who has to be correct ALL of the time. The "blacks" statement definitely has significant truth to it. And someone said earlier - FT I believe - that the "Bennett" statement could be pinned to any race. Based on the stats that have been provided, the majority of the violent crime offenders are BLACK. So, in that regard, I disagree that the label can be pinned to any other race.

On edit, FT's injection of the term "Mexican" into this conversation was in no way connected to the topic at hand. In Bennett's statement, the word "Blacks" was directly related to the subject. In fact, BLACKS were/are the subject. "The Mexican" has no relevance other than your injecting a title to ruffle feathers. JMO.

BTW - Prae, good to be back.

Originally posted by saycricket
And someone said earlier - FT I believe - that the "Bennett" statement could be pinned to any race. Based on the stats that have been provided, the majority of the violent crime offenders are BLACK. So, in that regard, I disagree that the label can be pinned to any other race.
Cricket, their argument centers on the fact that if violent criminal activity went down by ONE offender a year due to the abortion of all white babies born to poor families, then it's completely UNacceptable to cite black babies as an example because aborting any race's "poor" children would've sufficed the criteria.

Now that's being realistic, isn't it? I guess the moral of the story is don't be too specific when citing the best examples because that makes you a racist. :@@:

Originally posted by The Praetorian
I guess the moral of the story is don't be too specific when citing the best examples because that makes you a racist. :@@:

I would expand on that a little. In order to avoid being a racist, you must ignore the differences in races (but by all means respect cultural differences), do not hurt anyone's feelings regardless of truth or relevance, unless of course that race is white, then by all means have at it.

PC gone mad. Ignore race while Honoring diversity? Tell the truth but don't be too exact if it is a negative truth about a minority?

You guys are way too hung up on this PC stuff.

Long live the spics, spuds, spades, and other minorites. They will overcome prejudice in spite of the PC movement!

Originally posted by Echo2
PC gone mad. Ignore race while Honoring diversity? Tell the truth but don't be too exact if it is a negative truth about a minority?

You guys are way too hung up on this PC stuff.

Long live the spics, spuds, spades, and other minorites. They will overcome prejudice in spite of the PC movement!


I guess you cannot sense the sarcasm through the computer. I can't speak for other posters, but my post was dripping with it.

Originally posted by Divalatina
I would expand on that a little. In order to avoid being a racist, you must ignore the differences in races (but by all means respect cultural differences), do not hurt anyone's feelings regardless of truth or relevance, unless of course that race is white, then by all means have at it.
Damn, I love this girl! I don't think it gets any better than that.

How can you people honestly disagree with her?

If Bill would have used illegal Mexican immigrants in his statement, I would not have been offended at all, because darnnit, it would be true!

All ILLEGAL Mexican immigrants are criminals...hence the word "illegal". I'm not sure how you equate illegal immigrants with black people.

Originally posted by dnamertz
All ILLEGAL Mexican immigrants are criminals...hence the word "illegal".
That's a very good point.
Originally posted by dnamertz
I'm not sure how you equate illegal immigrants with black people.
I thought that was pretty clear. Both groups tend to commit a lot of crime here in the states. If Bennett used either as an example it would have been accurate, but probably less so if he chose to cite illegals instead of blacks with regard to violent crime. You do make an excellent point with your above statement, though...

I agree Prae - Diva rocks!

Damn, I love this girl! I don't think it gets any better than that.

*alarm sounds* Danger! Danger! Will Robinson! Prae is after Divalatina! :D

I'd have to agree, we've got an excellent new member in Diva.

All ILLEGAL Mexican immigrants are criminals...hence the word "illegal".

Thank you Sherlock ;)

You guys are way too hung up on this PC stuff.

? Alright, i'll be keeping my eye on you now :D

Originally posted by Evakian
Thank you Sherlock ;)
In the context of the argument, actually, that WAS a good point.

I could swear that's Normie from Cheers.

"Afternoon, everybody."
"BILL!"
"What's your pleasure, Mr. Bennett?"
"Aborted black babies. And nickel slots. And the Meat-NORMous."

Originally posted by boykorda
I could swear that's Normie from Cheers.

"Afternoon, everybody."
"BILL!"
"What's your pleasure, Mr. Bennett?"
"Aborted black babies. And nickel slots. And the Meat-NORMous."

Why does the Sesame Street song "One of these things is not like the others; one of these things just isn't the same," when I read this post?

Praetorian wrote:
Just because a Boeing 747 can crash doesn't mean it's had anywhere near the failure record of the DC-10. If were talking about crashes, then hands down, the Boeing is a much safer plane, period. So much so, that's almost to the tune of 4 to 1. Now if we're going to talk about danger in the airline industry, then why would I site the 747 as an example when the DC-10 is 80% more likely to crash? If you were carrying on a logical conversation with someone about airline safety, then why pick an obscure example?

To make your analogy more fitting you would have to assume that the makers of DC-10s have had a history of being treated like 2nd class citizens and faced many prejudices. You’d also have to assume that the higher crash rates in DC-10s were not caused because they are DC-10s but caused by some outside reason (the way the higher black crime rate is caused by poverty, not because they are black). You’d also have to assume that there were other groups of airplanes that have even higher crash rates than DC-10s (just like there are other groups with higher crime rates than blacks…ie, drug addicts, convicted felons). Now that the analogy is analogous, assume someone on a talk show said “if we stopped making DC-10s we could improve airline safety”. Its true, but to the uniformed listener that would imply that DC-10 workers just aren’t as good at building planes, and I’m sure you would not be surprised if many DC-10 employees said “hey, why are you making a statement like that…it makes us look like crummy workers”.

Is that really a good way to make a point? Bill Bennett could have left it at "financially disadvantaged", but my argument is, and has been the entire time, that blacks, on whole, are poorer than whites. Their criminal records speak for themselves. His example was totally apt. It fit the criteria in every possible way.

Actually it did not fit the criteria in every possible way because the discussion was NEVER about race. It was about the possible effects of abortion on crime rates, and if its your contention that he needed to use the GROUP with the highest crime rate in order to make his point, then he could have used one of the other groups I mentioned above, but for some reason he decided to use the RACE with the highest crime rate when the discussion was never about race. This idea that if he didn’t use black people in his example then he couldn’t have accurately made his point is ridiculous.

If, in the book "Freakonomics", it didn't specifically use blacks as an example, then fine, I understand your point, but does it really invalidate what he said, or make his point moot? I don't think so...

No, it doesn’t invalidate his point, it just wasn’t needed to make his point.

Divalatina wrote:
Using black in his statement was relevant as BLACKS to contribute in large part to our crime rate compared to their population. Black was relevant to his statement.

He could have made the same point without turning the conversation to race and I would have still understood his point, I don't know why you wouldn't have.

saycricket wrote:
someone said earlier that the "Bennett" statement could be pinned to any race. Based on the stats that have been provided, the majority of the violent crime offenders are BLACK. So, in that regard, I disagree that the label can be pinned to any other race.

This is the whole part of this argument I don't get...why does it have to be pinned to any RACE? It was not a discussion about race, it was not a discussion about crime rates between different races, it was not a conversation about why black people commit more crime. Sure, when it comes to race, black people have the higher crime rate in this country, but in a discussion about abortion and crime, why are you so anxious to pin this on any race?

Originally posted by Evakian
[b]
I'd have to agree, we've got an excellent new member in Diva.

I agree.........not WITH her always, but with the statement that she is an excellent new member.

Her arguments are well formed.

From: 10/11/05 Seattle Times, William Raspberry:

America's black inner cities have been denuded of their adult men. It started, in my memory, in the 1960s with the enforcement of the man-in-the-house rule, whereby welfare families were cut off if investigators could establish that an adult able-bodied male (whether or not he was employed) lived in the household. [And this cut-off is bad, why? I mean, c'mon... get a job, something, to show you're trying if you're unemployed.]

And the de-manizing went completely out of control with the introduction of absurdly long and mandatory sentences for crack cocaine offenses and the implementation of such judge-proof policies as the three-strikes-and-you're-out rule.

The result is that huge numbers of black men are being taken out of their communities — overwhelmingly for nonviolent offenses — and the effect of their absence is at least as powerful as with the South African elephants. [read entire article for the elephant connection]

Except now we know. Social scientists across the political spectrum tell us that father absence is a stronger predictor of criminal behavior than family income, education — or (Bill Bennett take note) race.


http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2002552769_raspberry11.html?syndication=rss

Ok, so, once again society (white society) is being blamed for the black violence and crimes in America. It is undisputed that the white race has dehumanized and criticized the black race for a very long time. However, and I'm so going to catch major flack for this, certainly that cannot be the sole crutch for their shortcomings from here until eternity?

Originally posted by saycricket
It is undisputed that the white race has dehumanized and criticized the black race for a very long time. However, and I'm so goig to catch flack for this, certainly that cannot be the sole crutch for their shortcomings from here until eternity?

I think I know what you're saying Cricket, but the sentencing disparities for blacks are still going on so I can't agree with your use of "has dehumanized"...it should be "is dehumanizing".

I concede to "dehumanizing" Vile. You are correct - as usual. :) But my point, bluntly, is when does the black blame game end and the black responsibility to their own family/race/etc. begin?

I thought that was pretty clear. Both groups tend to commit a lot of crime here in the states.

But her point was that using linking the black race to crime is no more offensive than linking ILLEGAL immigrants to crime. My point is that "illegal immigrant" is not a race. Illegal immigrants are ALL a group of people who have already broken at least one American law...blacks are not, so I don't see how she can say that if illegal immigrants wouldn't be offended then blacks shouldn't be offended either.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
I think I know what you're saying Cricket, but the sentencing disparities for blacks are still going on so I can't agree with your use of "has dehumanized"...it should be "is dehumanizing".
"Sentencing disparities"? Oh, I see..........so they're breaking the law, and because of it, white justices are seeking the opportunity to punish them unfairly. Did you ever think those disparities are caused from the overwhelming majority of black felons retaining a public defender instead of a private attorney? Possibly, it's the flippant "fuck you" attitude in court, or perhaps it's that they're committing these crimes at a quotient of 3 times what everybody else is. Whatever it is, judges on every level see these cases continually, and my guess is they're sick and tired of seeing recidivism and outright lawlessness from one group in particular. How is heavily punishing them for breaking the law "dehumanizing" them in any way, whatsoever? That's like saying, "Hey, Chuck, did you hear about Anforney? No, why? Well, he just raped a small child, and the Judge sentenced him to life without parole, but he only gave Blake 75 years for doing the same damn thing. I see what you mean, Todd, different cases, and different attorneys, but damn..........how dehumanizing."

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Possibly, it's the flippant "fuck you" attitude in court, or perhaps it's that they're committing these crimes at a quotient of 3 times what everybody else is. Whatever it is, judges on every level see these cases continually, and my guess is they're sick and tired of seeing recidivism and outright lawlessness from one group in particular.

Thank you, Prae, for putting my thoughts into these precise words. Perhaps, those that disagree with our views on this subject will unleash the whoop ass on you instead of on me. ;)

Originally posted by saycricket
Thank you, Prae, for putting my thoughts into these precise words. Perhaps, those that disagree with our views on this subject will unleash the whoop ass on you instead of on me. ;)
That's exactly what's going to happen - you watch. They're gonna go apeshit, so sit back and enjoy the show.

Originally posted by dnamertz
But her point was that using linking the black race to crime is no more offensive than linking ILLEGAL immigrants to crime. My point is that "illegal immigrant" is not a race. Illegal immigrants are ALL a group of people who have already broken at least one American law...blacks are not
I think you make a good point up to here.
Originally posted by dnamertz
so I don't see how she can say that if illegal immigrants wouldn't be offended then blacks shouldn't be offended either.
I don't think that's what she was saying. Being a Mexican woman, she realizes that illegal immigrants partake in criminal activity more frequently than most others (of course, this is outside of the fact that they're already breaking the law by just being here...I think she was referring to violent crime, of which, no other race comes close to eclipsing the black record), so her point was that, as a Mexican woman, SHE wouldn't be offended if someone referenced Illegals (Mexicans) breaking the law at a higher rate, because THEY DO. IMO, it was an incredibly fair and logical way to look at it.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
"Sentencing disparities"? Oh, I see..........so they're breaking the law, and because of it, white justices are seeking the opportunity to punish them unfairly. Did you ever think those disparities are caused from the overwhelming majority of black felons retaining a public defender instead of a private attorney?

That's one factor. When I speak of sentencing disparities, I'm not talking about the number of people sentenced from each group, I'm referring to the disparity between the sentences received by members of the two groups for committing the same offenses.

The sentences received for possession of crack cocaine are typically harsher than the sentences given for possession of the same amout of powder cocaine. Black people use more crack cocaine, and whites use more powder cocaine...coincidence?

As to the word "dehumanizing", I agree it's not the appropriate word. I wouldn't have used it but I was paraphrasing Cricket. Sorry Cricket. :)

Being a Mexican woman, she realizes that illegal immigrants partake in criminal activity more frequently than most others (of course, this is outside of the fact that they're already breaking the law by just being here...I think she was referring to violent crime, of which, no other race comes close to eclipsing the black record)

Bennet didn't mention "violent" crime, so I'm not sure how we suddendly switched from crime to violent crime.

I think she was referring to violent crime, of which, no other race comes close to eclipsing the black record), so her point was that, as a Mexican woman, SHE wouldn't be offended if someone referenced Illegals (Mexicans) breaking the law at a higher rate, because THEY DO.

Again, Illegal immigrant (Mexican or otherwise) is not a race. Its a group of people who of course are going to have a higher crime rate (not including the breaking of immigration laws) because they've already established that they are willing to disregard our laws. Thats like saying "convicts have a higher crime rate than other groups"...what is there to even be offended about if you are a member of that group?

No problem Vile, no need to apologize. How about we officially strike "dehumanize(d)(ing)" and inject "degrade(d)(ing)" instead?

Originally posted by dnamertz
Again, Illegal immigrant (Mexican or otherwise) is not a race. Its a group of people who of course are going to have a higher crime rate (not including the breaking of immigration laws) because they've already established that they are willing to disregard our laws. Thats like saying "convicts have a higher crime rate than other groups"...what is there to even be offended about if you are a member of that group?

I think the same can be said for this entire thread. It has been documented at least twice (3 times?) that blacks are the largest offenders (and yes, most violent, but let's leave violence out for the moment) of crime. Period. Why all the wrankle then? What is there to be offended about if you are a member of that group?

I think the same can be said for this entire thread. It has been documented at least twice (3 times?) that blacks are the largest offenders (and yes, most violent, but let's leave violence out for the moment) of crime. Period. Why all the wrankle then? What is there to be offended about if you are a member of that group?

Because, black is an entire race which includes many people who have never commited a crime, while illegal immigrants are not. Again, I'm not against anyone stating the fact about a certain race's crime rate, but if you're going to do it in a way that implies that the race is naturally criminal then expect someone to be offended.

It would be like someone stating the fact that "Americans tortured people, and the Nazis tortured people". Its a factual statement, but it implies that Americans are as bad as the Nazis and I'd expect Americans to be pissed off about the comment. In fact I remeber earlier this year when a politician made a similar comment and was criticized by many who are now defending Bennet.

More Than 2,000 Kids Serving Life Without Parole in US

A new report by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch has found that in the United States more than 2,200 children have been given life sentences without the possibility of parole. The report names Virginia, Louisiana and Michigan as the most aggressive in imposing such sentences. The practice is outlawed in many countries and by international law, under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Across the US, African American youth were found to be 10 times more likely to receive life without parole than white youth.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/14/1351232

Originally posted by dnamertz
It would be like someone stating the fact that "Americans tortured people, and the Nazis tortured people". Its a factual statement, but it implies that Americans are as bad as the Nazis and I'd expect Americans to be pissed off about the comment. In fact I remeber earlier this year when a politician made a similar comment and was criticized by many who are now defending Bennet.
Great point.