qwertyytrewq Wrote:Homosexual (equal) rights is an easy one to solve (just change the law, people who oppose it just have to deal with it like they dealt with interracial marriage and women's rights).Are you living in a dictatorship where you can just decide to change the law without the people's approval? As long as the majority opposes it, tough luck. If the majority agrees, good for them.
qwertyytrewq Wrote:This sounds like a case of "Moving the Goal Posts" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts) to me. So you recognize that Obama and Romney voters can be different (despite your earlier claim that they're the exact same), but now you qualify your position via "issues" and "non-issues" (Romney/Obama voters are the same in "issues" but they are different in "non-issues").Yes, I look at it at an issues/non-issues kind of way. Say you have two 1,45m short basketball players, and the coach discriminates only against one, not because he is short (issue), but because he is a ginger (non-issue). Both Democrats and Republicans are equally bad (short) in my opinion, as their vote only prolongs the issues.
qwertyytrewq Wrote:Actually, I think the "why" is pretty important. If you don't address the "why" (the problem), then we'll forever be addressing merely the symptoms of the problem.The "why" has been discussed by sociologists and psychologists and whatever alike for decades, we all know the reasons why, so there is absolutely no need to always point out the reasons whenever somebody says something "politically incorrect," yet 100% factual. Because that's nothing else than making excuses. "Yeah, well, umm, they're bad, but you know, the reasons are blabla yadda yadda." The reasons are in the past and cannot be changed, so arguing about the reasons instead of the actual problem is completely pointless and leads to absolutely nowhere. You calling this merely a "symptom" is like a doctor telling a former smoker that has developed lung cancer 10 years after he stopped smoking that his cancer is merely a symptom of the problem of smoking, and that he should do something about his smoking habits.
qwertyytrewq Wrote:In your hypothetical murderer in the court case, I'm sure they would consider all facts relevant to the case. For example, if it turned out that the "murderer" was actually acting in self-defense resulting in the death of the "victim" then it wouldn't be fair to charge the murderer (or manslaughterer) with the full charge due to the how and why (person was killed due to self defense, not from a malicious and calculated attack). Or maybe this murderer was a battered wife who finally snapped after years of abuse from her drunk husband. It's the court's job to consider all available facts and implement a reasonable solution.I'm talking about in-depth explanations reaching way back into childhood. The stuff you can read in books about serial killers, written by psychologists.
qwertyytrewq Wrote:Anyway, you were making the claim that black people are more criminally inclined while at the same time, stating that "how and why" is not important. I disagree.It's not a claim, it's a fact. Then we'll just agree to disagree.
qwertyytrewq Wrote:If so, since you don't care about how and why, then what policy would you implement?Not labelling everyone (Ron Paul included) that says something politically incorrect as a racist, simply for stating the truth, would be a nice start. I said earlier America should stop playing "World Police" and start solving its own issues. This is one of them. I'm certain with the time and money that otherwise goes into mindless wars and to Israel's aid (which doesn't even need any aid, since it's the 30th richest country in the world, yet American tax payers keep sending 8 million dollars a day to them), something could be done to improve the situation. I don't know about America, but in Britain or France, they could be deported, since most of them are immigrants anyway.
qwertyytrewq Wrote:Perhaps we should look at the why. I myself don't know the why of it, but there seems to be a pretty high correlation between black criminals and the poverty of the families or households they came from. I'm not a sociologist or lawmaker but to me, black criminality seems to have a higher correlation with poverty (as an example) than say, just the black skin or genes. To me, crime seems to be better explanation by the poor household they were born in than so my first strategy would be to solve poverty. Because poverty is a cycle and if we don't address that, then black criminals (something you don't like) will keep existing and in higher numbers. If that doesn't work, then we could look your other options (sterilization etc).The reasons are historical, economic, cultural and genetic. Yes, genetics play a role in it as well. Black people have the most testosterone of all races, and with testosterone comes aggression. Most are also rather slow, with the black IQ being some 15 points below the national average. Add all these things together and you have a recipe for disaster. People can call me a racist for pointing these things out, but I don't care, I'm not afraid of the truth, however inconvenient it may be for some.
To prove it's not merely an economic issue, take a look at Appalachia. Mostly white uneducated rural-type people, the poorest part in America, actually, yet almost zero crime. Indian or Chinese immigrants that come to the US with little money are not criminally inclined either. Their children become successful doctors and make a nice living. They even outscore the majority in schools. So no, it's not simply an economic issue.
