Not all blacks are bad people!

[ComradeMeow]

I cannot say that the OP is trying to post something racist but it coincides with what many of us Righties say. I do not find the post itself racist although I do admit to not reading the link.

I wrote what I did based on the emphasis the OP provided.

Well, you are doing your work better than I am, I haven't paid the OP much attention honestly. Feeling lazy 

I think I am mistaking you for the response that downbeatplumb made. 

Fair enough, no sweat.

ComradeMeowHmmm, but race leads to other factors like income, social structure, racial tendencies, political leaning, local legislative powers, economic climate and culture analysis. 
I see this same data get used and I always see it get backed by the implications it can lead to along with the implications it results from. Also it is not Post Hoc if no claim is being made. With this same logic if I was to say, "most of my friends do not like." It does not make it fallacious since no preposition is being put forth. A logical fallacy requires a preposition and this is why logical fallacies do not apply to the field of statistics unless basing an analysis from it.

Except -- in your very first sentence in this paragraph, you explicitly write, "race leads to other factors". Does race lead to those "other factors", or does racism lead to it? That is where correlation vs causation is occurring in the OP's post, and that is exactly the root of my point about post hoc reasoning.

Also, a logical fallacy doesn't require a preposition, which is an element of the English language. Perhaps you mean proposition or premise? In either case, the fact that such is not explicitly stated doesn't mean it is absent; it may well be -- as much racism is -- hidden, either due to social opprobrium or the absence of deeper questioning on the part of the claimant.

I mean the analysis of race in the statistics provided. I am actually trying to say the reverse but I messed up. I mean that that when looked upon in statistical analysis that race can often be looked upon with the other factors I mentioned in the first sentence (income and social structure etc). I am in no way referring to racism, at least not yet.

Also I apologize that I wrote preposition and was probably confusing the shit out of you   . The look on your face must have been epic. 
I also think that you are referring to racism him and not race. I am only discussing race as of this topic, not racism per se. This must have been why you brought up the logical fallacy thing. 
But on that note I will say that just because an analysis of race leads one group to formulate a theory that you find racist doesn't make that group racist. 
I have no problems acknowledging that many African nations produce some of the lowest IQ averages and lowest intelligence ratings of any sort. All the elements are there coupled with societies that lack modern advancement for various external and internal reasons. 
BUT I would not run away from the fact that Europe has also bent Africa over and thoroughly rammed its imperialist cock up the continent's ass leaving epic economic seepage. 

Also I just wanted to make that analogy. 

But my point is that a little research into what I am referring to reveals why you cannot be too quick to declare racism. 

Now I can easily tell you what the analysis finds in these statistics and my personal predictions on their future results. I am sure yours differ but we are not jumping the shark before we find a boat. 

Poverty, crime, and race are interrelated here in America. My suspicions about agenda grow when I find someone highlighting one particular cause in any multivariate analysis. Complex problems very rarely submit to simple analyses.

Feel free to offer your own analysis. We'll see whether there's a shark underneath you or not.

. . . Oh god, I hate sharks and am terribly frightened of the ocean. The fact you had to use that phrase is just chilling.

Back on topic though . . . 

I acknowledge the correlation, I was bringing it up earlier although maybe not that clear. 
My analysis of the matter is simple broadly and more complicated narrowly. 

• Race gets used by political powers for the effects it has in America. This leads to potentially dangerous political influences which alter the environment. An example of this is California and its liberal nature as a result of Democrats and other major lefty movements in the 60s and 70s.
  
• Race is also a historical event in the American life. It has result in social trends which are primarily born out of emotion and not reason. An example of this is the divide of economic preferences amongst race. 
  

If you wanna talk specifics then lets make a seperate post or even a seperate thread about race and my opinions on it based off these to points. 

I did not state or imply that an agenda must be political. You made a reference to what I assume you thought as an agenda that Republicans have about race and their ways of dealing with it. Am I not correct?

No, you're not -- as you yourself admit, you were making an assumption, and an incorrect one. As for when you implied that an agenda is a political thing:

But people like me want to deregulate the nation not the reverse, so saying that it is somehow a horrible agenda only implies domination of some sort.

What do you mean by "deregulation" is not legislative action? What other "deregulation" is there?

An agenda need not be political. As the linked definition shows in the second denotation, it can be an underlying goal tying together disparate points.

I am still in no way shape or form saying an agenda is something political. I am only referring to the alleged agenda of Republicans and Righties for passing legislation to somehow creep racism into the American way of life. I hear this a lot by Lefties so I thought you were using this same argument. 

And I am using the word deregulation in opposition to regulation. I was trying to make it a positive action vs a negative action. Most people tend to view it that way I though it would work for you. I didn't have intention on getting politically specific just yet. 

---

I will address this later, I need sleep. 

Death. 
It is not of my own will that I forced anybody to make the mistake that resulted in their comeuppance. 
Should I try to find ways to enforce regulatory actions on chairs because I made the foolish decision to jump off one and hence forth break my neck? Is it not of my own foolishness that I acquired my price? Should others suffer with ridiculous seating equipment because of my idiocy?

Regulation is useful, though often overdone. But I was asking you about the cost to society for funding abortions vs the cost to society for refusing to do so. Have you considered the implications of your position? How socialized do you think an unwanted, and perhaps even resented, child is? An abortion costs perhaps $500 on average, according to Dr Google. With around 1.2 million per year, that's an outlay of $700 million dollars. Now, what does it cost society to imprison these children? If we're going to look at this from a practical standpoint, let's talk turkey, right?

What makes you think it would be expensive to let abortions go into the market? You do realize that a vast amount of women who get abortions are already on their second if not more.

This is a questionable claim. Could you support it with a link to a good source?

If they are incapable of having adequate intelligence to control sexual desires why would I desire them to acquire benefits meant for the civilized? We are humans and are apart of nature, why would I deluded myself into thinking that I can somehow stop suffering?

And yes that is an honest question

No one's asking you to do it alone. What is being asked here is whether you prefer seeing a smaller portion of your taxes being spent on helping poorer women make responsible reproductive choices, or a larger portion of your taxes funding the support of foster care, prisons, and the like.

Also, your insinuation that these women are uncivilized is duly noted. I wonder how you define that word, civilized?

The idea that we can and should only do for ourselves flies in the face of the human experience. We all do better to the degree that we help each other. It'd be nice if charity picked up the slack, but then that relies on people being willing to help out the less-fortunate. If you're unwilling to do it under the aegis of tax laws, why should I think you'd be willing to help out left to your own devices?