And you're dishonest. That was obviously sarcasm.

This is @A Theist, not BQ

(July 10, 2016 at 1:58 pm)Losty Wrote: And you're dishonest. That was obviously sarcasm.

This is @A Theist, not BQ

I figured Losty

(July 10, 2016 at 1:58 pm)Losty Wrote: And you're dishonest. That was obviously sarcasm.

This is @A Theist, not BQ

No it wasn't. He was actually being dishonest. He emboldened part of a reply that I made to Homeless Nutter after he suggested that the cops should shoot a couple of white guys and maybe a woman or two, to please the egalitarians. He also said,

Quote:The bolded bit is a very telling comment, indicating that we should like or dislike people based on their melanin content.

I made no such comment and I didn't indicate anything like that. He was dishonest in his response.

(July 10, 2016 at 1:56 pm)A Theist Wrote:

(July 10, 2016 at 12:21 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: The bolded bit is a very telling comment, indicating that we should like or dislike people based on their melanin content.  Their are black people, white people, and some in-between that I wouldn't have in my home, and it's got fuck all to do with skin tone.

You're a racist.

Boru

....and you're dishonest. I never made any such claim that we should dislike people based on their skin color. You took my comment out of context from a reply I made to Homless Nutter when he suggested that an acceptable solution would be for the cops to "shoot a couple of white guys once in a while"....

Quote:Homeless Nutter Wrote: [url=http://atheistforums.org/post-1329057.html#pid1329057][/url]I'd suggest maybe finally stopping playing Wild West, like civilized adults all over the world, but clearly - that's not going to happen in 'Murrica, so perhaps the acceptable solution would be for the cops to shoot a couple of unarmed white guys once in a while? And maybe a woman or 2, to please egalitarians?

No? Well - I don't see anyone else coming up with a better idea...

Obviously, HN has an issue with whites, and since you didn't call him out for suggesting that the cops shoot a couple of white guys,  and "maybe a woman or two", I can only assume that you agree with his position. Is that something you agree with? Would that make things more equal for you?

With all due respect, horseshit.  Nutter's comment was clearly sarcasm - if you didn't pick up on that, you're a bigger fool than you look.  No one in their right mind would suggest that Nutter is advocating the killing of people, white or any other colour.  But YOU, ya gobshyte, clearly and without any attempt at sarcasm or irony, concluded that Nutter doesn't like 'white people'.

Nothing in my remarks was dishonest.  Your statement 'you don't like white people' can only be taken to mean that the colour of someone's skin is a factor in whether or not they should be liked. Furthermore, you entire post is only about the number of white or black people killed, with no attempt to delve into WHY they are killed.

You disingenuousness is breathtaking.

Boru

(July 10, 2016 at 2:13 pm)A Theist Wrote:

(July 10, 2016 at 1:58 pm)Losty Wrote: And you're dishonest. That was obviously sarcasm.

This is @A Theist, not BQ

No it wasn't. He was actually being dishonest. He emboldened part of a reply that I made to Homeless Nutter after he suggested that the cops should shoot a couple of white guys and maybe a woman or two, to please the egalitarians. He also said,

Quote:The bolded bit is a very telling comment, indicating that we should like or dislike people based on their melanin content.

I made no such comment and I didn't indicate anything like that. He was dishonest in his response.

What homeless nutter said was clear and obvious sarcasm. If you want to respond to sarcasm by insinuating that the person who used it hates white people then you have no business being upset by anyone who responds to your disingenuous post by calling you a racist. No reasonable person would have looked at HN's post and thought he was genuinely being racist against white people, Hillary.

(July 10, 2016 at 9:05 am)A Theist Wrote:

(July 10, 2016 at 8:27 am)Homeless Nutter Wrote: I'd suggest maybe finally stopping playing Wild West, like civilized adults all over the world, but clearly - that's not going to happen in 'Murrica, so perhaps the acceptable solution would be for the cops to shoot a couple of unarmed white guys once in a while? And maybe a woman or 2, to please egalitarians?

No? Well - I don't see anyone else coming up with a better idea...

You'll be happy to know, since you obviously don't like white people, that the percentage in the killing of unarmed whites in 2016 by the police is exactly the same for black people and more whites are shot by the police than black people are. The far and vast majority of blacks who are murdered each year are committed by other blacks.

First off, if the percentage of blacks who are killed is the same as the percentage of whites who are killed, that's still a very disproportionate number of black people. Black people are only what, 10-15% of America? For there to be absolutely no racial bias in these killings, only 10-15% of police brutality victims should be black. It's far more than 15% going on the frequency of which we hear about it compared to whites being killed.

Also "black-on-black crime" is not a thing. When a black person kills another black person, it's wrong of course, but they're not killing eachother because they're black. Most murders are intraracial (within the same race) because of the generally segregated nature of American neighbourhoods. Most white murder victims are murdered by other white people, is that "white-on-white crime"? Nobody ever calls it that unless it's black people involved.

ETA pretty much what the guy in that video BQ posted earlier was saying, just saw that.

(July 10, 2016 at 3:46 pm)Yeauxleaux Wrote:

(July 10, 2016 at 9:05 am)A Theist Wrote: You'll be happy to know, since you obviously don't like white people, that the percentage in the killing of unarmed whites in 2016 by the police is exactly the same for black people and more whites are shot by the police than black people are. The far and vast majority of blacks who are murdered each year are committed by other blacks.

First off, if the percentage of blacks who are killed is the same as the percentage of whites who are killed, that's still a very disproportionate number of black people. Black people are only what, 10-15% of America? For there to be absolutely no racial bias in these killings, only 10-15% of police brutality victims should be black. It's far more than 15% going on the frequency of which we hear about it compared to whites being killed.

Also "black-on-black crime" is not a thing. When a black person kills another black person, it's wrong of course, but they're not killing eachother because they're black. Most murders are intraracial (within the same race) because of the generally segregated nature of American neighbourhoods. Most white murder victims are murdered by other white people, is that "white-on-white crime"? Nobody ever calls it that unless it's black people involved.

ETA pretty much what the guy in that video BQ posted earlier was saying, just saw that.

Also the rates of police brutality should be totally proportional to the population size if no racial bias is involved but that's only if each population commits equal amounts of crime, resists arrest at the same rate, and acts violently towards the police at the same rate.

Obviously ideally the rates of police brutality should be 0 across the board but if one group has more interaction with the police and commits more crime and resists arrest more you would probably expect to see police brutality instances rise just because of increased interaction with the police.