Blacks commit proportionately more crime than whites

Affable · 25-05-2008 07:23PM

Susannahmia wrote: »

valuable resources are still taken by the west for a pittance and manufactured in the first world for a huge profit and then sold back to the third world at huge prices, this phemomyn is most prevalent and pronounced in the African continent.

Survival of the fittest. Other places wouldn't allow that to happen to them.

ronbyrne2005 · 25-05-2008 07:24PM

Pythia wrote: »

I'd be in favour of reducing immigration into Ireland full stop...

This is nothing to do with immigration ya dope.

Affable · 25-05-2008 07:26PM

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

Can you propose even one mechanism by which the factors that determine skin color could also cause increased tendency to crime as you seem to be saying is the case? What about half cast people? Are they more likely than whites to commit crimes? What about Albinos?, are they the lowest risks for criminality? Because the only difference between all is subtle physical features and levels of pigment in skin.

No the factors which determine skin colour have nothing to do with it.
But it's entirely likely there are psychological differences between ethnic groups, as will be found out by geneticists eventually.

Sherifu · 25-05-2008 07:26PM

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

This is nothing to do with immigration ya dope.

O.o

Susannahmia · 25-05-2008 07:27PM

Affable wrote: »

Survival of the fittest. Other places wouldn't allow that to happen to them.

Yeah like Ireland....We were never colonised

Dudess · 25-05-2008 07:27PM

Affable wrote: »

Survival of the fittest. Other places wouldn't allow that to happen to them.

You haven't got off my trolldar I see. Or... maybe it was something to do with the fact that the "civilised" whites had the deadly munitions and the Africans were powerless against them... oh what a gross character flaw.

Karoma · 25-05-2008 07:27PM

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

This is nothing to do with immigration ya dope.

Careful now.

Dudess · 25-05-2008 07:28PM

Pythia wrote: »

I'd be in favour of reducing immigration into Ireland full stop...

I'm sure you have good reasons for this so it would make sense to post them instead of just one sentence. That's kinda pointless.

Ruskie4Rent · 25-05-2008 07:32PM

Affable wrote: »

It means that people will sometimes avoid the truth if it hurts people's feelings.

Do you actually think thats why people are disagreeing with you?

I have no problem with people's opininons being slightly politically incorrect as long as its based on rational thinking and not half arsed 'facts'. Yours are not though.
Don't assume people cannot see it from your point of view because the are 'too pc'.

Its not the fact that you are not being politically correct. You're just plain wrong.

Kold · 25-05-2008 07:33PM

Pythia wrote: »

I'd be in favour of reducing immigration into Ireland full stop...

Hopefully you have a better answer than not liking foreign people or wanting Ireland to get incredibly wealthy whilst others suffer immense poverty?

Affable · 25-05-2008 07:34PM

Dudess wrote: »

Or... maybe it was something to do with the fact that the "civilised" whites had the deadly munitions and the Africans were powerless against them... oh what a gross character flaw.

A common logical flaw is to assume that being on the victims side against the oppressor implies nobility. Who says they wouldn't do just the same if they had the power?

Four-Too · 25-05-2008 07:35PM

Ffs, its ****ing obvious why blacks commit more crime than whites - they are treated as 2nd class citizens, or dont get the top jobs/housing. What the **** do expect?? This is an up-ur-arse white thread here that knows nothing about the difficulty, oppression and the mis-treatment of blacks. The world has constantly put blacks down in the mud. Afica uniteeeee!!!! - Bob Marley

Karoma · 25-05-2008 07:35PM

Affable wrote: »

A common logical flaw is to assume that being on the victims side against the oppressor implies nobility. Who says they wouldn't do just the same if they had the power?

If my aunty had balls, she'd be my uncle. Try again.

Affable · 25-05-2008 07:36PM

Kold wrote: »

Hopefully you have a better answer than not liking foreign people or wanting Ireland to get incredibly wealthy whilst others suffer immense poverty?

Getting wealthy does not imply others getting poor. Anyway, even if that were the case, would you be happy to live in poor conditions so some tiny portion of Africa could be better off?

KnifeWRENCH · 25-05-2008 07:37PM

Affable wrote: »

Survival of the fittest. Other places wouldn't allow that to happen to them.

Are you saying that "fitter" countries wouldn't allow themselves to be exploited in the trade market? Or are you saying that "fitter" countries wouldn't allow themselves be colonised in the first place?

If you are saying the former, you obviously know nothing about how world trade and globalisation work. It's practically impossible for 3rd world countries to set up viable manufacturing industries. If they export manufactured products, they are charged extremely high tariffs. The only way to avoid those tariffs is to export raw materials, which earn them a lot less money.

If you are saying the latter, well yet again the only correct response is :rolleyes:

ronbyrne2005 · 25-05-2008 07:40PM

Affable wrote: »

Getting wealthy does not imply others getting poor. Anyway, even if that were the case, would you be happy to live in poor conditions so some tiny portion of Africa could be better off?

Actually theres enough resources in the world for everyone to have an average european lifestyle, it's just some regions/countries/people have much much more.

Kold · 25-05-2008 07:40PM

Affable wrote: »

Getting wealthy does not imply others getting poor. Anyway, even if that were the case, would you be happy to live in poor conditions so some tiny portion of Africa could be better off?

Poorer. Yes.

Affable · 25-05-2008 07:42PM

Kold wrote: »

Poorer. Yes.

Well, that's maybe very commendable, but then again maybe it's just a denial of entirely healthy self-interest.

Dudess · 25-05-2008 07:48PM

Oh no I understand where Kold's coming from. I'd have no problem with Ireland being considerably less flash and wanky than it is thanks to the Celtic Tiger.

Affable, what's with the cherry-picking of quotes to suit your argument? And the ignoring of those that don't? As well as the ignoring of challenges to some of the utter crap you're posting? And the contradicting of previous statements?

Affable · 25-05-2008 07:50PM

square_igloo wrote: »

Or are you saying that "fitter" countries wouldn't allow themselves be colonised in the first place?

Yes.

ronbyrne2005 · 25-05-2008 07:54PM

Affable wrote: »

Yes.

Since when has a countries ability to resist colonisation been determined by the genetic make-up of it's citizens? You really are talking bull my good man. There would be no problem with printing studies that backed up your opinion so don't use that excuse to back up your unsupported, fallacious views.

Ruskie4Rent · 25-05-2008 07:54PM

Dudess wrote: »

Affable, what's with the cherry-picking of quotes to suit your argument? And the ignoring of those that don't? As well as the ignoring of challenges to some of the utter crap you're posting? And the contradicting of previous statements?

Because to do otherwise would mean his argument is valid.

He actually used genetics to back up his argument, and then when people would dare call him a racist that must mean they are too scared to admit the 'truth'.

Affable · 25-05-2008 07:55PM

Karoma wrote: »

If my aunty had balls, she'd be my uncle. Try again.

It was a perfectly valid point. People wrongly assume there's greater nobility in the disadvantaged than the powerful. They forget that people just act according to the circumstances they are in.

Susannahmia · 25-05-2008 07:55PM

Dudess wrote: »

Affable, what's with the cherry-picking of quotes to suit your argument? And the ignoring of those that don't? As well as the ignoring of challenges to some of the utter crap you're posting? And the contradicting of previous statements?

+1

Ruskie4Rent · 25-05-2008 07:55PM

Affable wrote: »

Yes.

What exactly would make countries that get colonized less fit?

Susannahmia · 25-05-2008 07:57PM

Affable wrote: »

They forget that people just act according to the circumstances they are in.

Good boy. Like "the blacks" do maybe? You just contradicted your whole arguement.

ronbyrne2005 · 25-05-2008 07:58PM

Susannahmia wrote: »

Good boy. Like "the blacks" do maybe? You just contradicted your whole arguement.

Bingo!

Kold · 25-05-2008 07:58PM

Affable wrote: »

Well, that's maybe very commendable, but then again maybe it's just a denial of entirely healthy self-interest.

Basically, and correct me if I'm wrong, but you are asking if I think that it's OK to turn people away from our shores, to be completely exclusive due to one's skin colour? I think that's very very wrong.

You are saying that to do so would be a denial of healthy self-interest. Now don't get me wrong, I'm no martyr but you'll forgive me if I believe that every life is worth saving. I don't think that a diamond is worth a few African's lives. In this country, our 'problems' are that 55 year olds are getting wrongly diagnosed and dying from cancer, in theirs genocide. No matter how wealthy a society is there will always be some kind of problem.

You have to give every person a chance, that is natural selection. There is no science that would dare claim that black people have the genetic disposition to break the law. For the Irish people to look at that statistic and believe that it was true and therefore legislate on it, I'd have to back the culling of the Irish people for dangerous stupidity.

Karoma · 25-05-2008 07:59PM

Affable wrote: »

It was a perfectly valid point.

Definition of "valid": well grounded in logic or truth or having legal force. Your argument was none of these. Demonstrate how you came to that conclusion, other than you simply think 'that's the way it would be so nyerrr'.

People wrongly assume there's greater nobility in the disadvantaged than the powerful. They forget that people just act according to the circumstances they are in.

... again, see the map I gave you earlier and fire away.
Are you now say it's wrong to make generalisations?

Dudess · 25-05-2008 08:00PM

Affable wrote: »

They forget that people just act according to the circumstances they are in.

Funny... cos that's what you're doing now.

So anyway, you're saying Africans are prone to violent tendencies, yet when it was pointed out to you that whites committed violence against Africans you replied they shouldn't have let it happen to them, which implies they were maybe not so prone to violent tendencies... so which is it? Are they or aren't they prone to violence?
And I thought colonialism was a wondrous experience for Africans... but now you acknowledge that, actually, some bad stuff was done to them in the name of civilisation... Jeez, be consistent will you?!

Blacks commit proportionately more crime than whites

Comments