• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

"Christian Moms Group Condemns Hallmark Channel for Airing Lesbian Wedding Ad"

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
What's "family-unfriendly" about a kiss? And how does it "appear out of nowhere"? Its depicting the end of a wedding ceremony - it's pretty obvious that there's going to be a kiss.

And are you seriously suggesting that kisses should never be depicted on screen?

The word family, when it comes to weddings, means children and heirs to the family. Mothers, as a rule, want grandchildren from their daughters, so they participate in one of the most enjoyable phases of an older mother's life and right of passage.

As you know from biology, this advertised union and kiss can never produce children. This is not a natural combination designed for that purpose. There is only one such natural combination; XY and XX.

These mothers got protective and defensive since do not want their daughters influenced by Hollywood and Progressive population control gimmicks, trying to rob them of their natural future. That one lesbian couple symbolized robbing two families and their matriarchs of grandchildren.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
As you know from biology, this advertised union and kiss can never produce children.
What a load of crap.
Don't get me wrong, I understand that there are tons of people who buy into it.
But then, tons of people also used to think the world was flat, tomatos were poisonous, horse hairs left in barrels of water turned into worms....
 

Galateasdream

Active Member
People are free to make gay wedding ads.
People are free to complain about them.
People are free to choose to show such ads.
People are free to choose to not watch that channel.

Isn't it great to live in a developed, democratic part of the world?

Here's some more cute gay wedding adverts:

 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
The word family, when it comes to weddings, means children and heirs to the family. Mothers, as a rule, want grandchildren from their daughters, so they participate in one of the most enjoyable phases of an older mother's life and right of passage.

As you know from biology, this advertised union and kiss can never produce children. This is not a natural combination designed for that purpose. There is only one such natural combination; XY and XX.
So do you therefore believe it should be illegal or immoral for infertile people to get married?

These mothers got protective and defensive since do not want their daughters influenced by Hollywood and Progressive population control gimmicks, trying to rob them of their natural future. That one lesbian couple symbolized robbing two families and their matriarchs of grandchildren.
Point number one:
Lesbian couples can (and regularly do) have children.

Point number two:
Nobody should feel like they can't love the person they love because they are "robbing something" from somebody else. Those two women don't owe anything that would require them to be forcibly impregnated to appease their ancestors.
 
Last edited:

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Well - at least you're attempting to be consistent here - even if I do not believe it is sincere.
Why wouldn't you believe that it's sincere??

I would draw your attention to the fact that "long-lasting" does not necessarily include "current", which is the focus of this discussion.
The subject matter we are talking about is still "current," unfortunately. Hence my statement.

Can you point to any current examples of systemic oppression faced by African Americans based on their skin color?
ImmortalFlame has given you several examples.


Policing in black & white
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...nal-justice-system-is-racist-heres-the-proof/
Race and the Police | National Police Foundation
Report to the United Nations on Racial Disparities in the U.S. Criminal Justice System | The Sentencing Project
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
The word family, when it comes to weddings, means children and heirs to the family. Mothers, as a rule, want grandchildren from their daughters, so they participate in one of the most enjoyable phases of an older mother's life and right of passage.

As you know from biology, this advertised union and kiss can never produce children. This is not a natural combination designed for that purpose. There is only one such natural combination; XY and XX.

These mothers got protective and defensive since do not want their daughters influenced by Hollywood and Progressive population control gimmicks, trying to rob them of their natural future. That one lesbian couple symbolized robbing two families and their matriarchs of grandchildren.
Nonsense.

My female cousin and her wife have a five year old. They're a family. Why should their family never get to be respresented on television? They exist, after all. And they are a family. :shrug:
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Remember, he was the guy you voted for @columbus claim that me sharing my opinion was "similar" to raping a child.
Let me try to clarify this briefly.

1)Homosex/gay marriage
2)Paedophilia
3)Homophobic teachings

You lump the first two together, referring to them as wrong and "inappropriate". I lump the second two together as "child abuse".

Your category is based on your personal feelings. You don't like gay stuff, and your interpretation of your Scripture of choice says that God doesn't like it either. It's entirely subjective, not even all Christians agree with your interpretation.

My category is based on objective evidence for causing harm to people, sometimes very severe. There are different kinds of abuse, behavior that causes damage to youngsters who aren't completely developed and competent. Behavior that wouldn't be a problem between adults can leave lasting emotional scars that results in all kinds of destructively dysfunctional behavior later in life. While it's hard to draw a direct connection between sexual or psychological abuse and the resulting damage, the statistical correlations are overwhelming. That's why I compare the damage done by teaching kids that gay people have something terribly wrong with them that they can only escape by giving up some of the best things in life, like romance sex and marriage with sexual abuse. Because the damage done is very similar.

And no, adding some platitudes like "But Jesus loves you" to the abuse doesn't help.

So, while I totally support your rights to self-determination and not have gay sex, I vehemently oppose your forcing your opinion on vulnerable children.
Tom
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Speaking of justification, however, are you able to justify the practice of homosexuality?
Sure, that's easy.

People usually live their best lives with a compatible spouse. I firmly believe that, and I believe that my opinion is backed up by statistical evidence. Marriage is good for all healthy adults.

Since sex and romance are such powerful bonds in such a union, compatibility is crucial. For gay men like myself, that means another marriage oriented gay man.
You are the one who needs to justify your opinion that my marriage is wrong. And if all you've got is your personal feelings then all I can say is "Don't get married to someone of your gender. But don't tell me what to do without something a lot more objective than your sexual preferences."
Tom
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Also, if anyone were to follow the entirety of our discussion they would see that I only continued to share my beliefs when you'd ask me further questions.
Here's another aspect of the problems with you sharing your beliefs with impressionable youth.
The damage done to gay kids is obvious. But there's a kind of damage done to the ordinary ones as well. By teaching them that there's something wrong with gay people you are none-too-subtly encouraging and endorsing some ugly behavior. Kids can be cruel. By giving them justification for bullying and marginalizing and otherwise mistreating their peers you're abusing them as well as their victims. Sometimes they fully outgrow that sort of nasty behavior, but all too often such behavior becomes part of their identity and world view. Even after they're adults, they see odd and vulnerable people as legitimate targets.

So, I think it best for all kids if you keep your views to yourself in the presence of children.
Tom
 

JesusKnowsYou

Active Member
I would say our society is structured in such a way that men are often more encouraged to or more able to commit illegal acts.
I would say the same in regards to the African-American community and culture.

It is structured in such a way that its members are encouraged to and are more able to commit illegal acts.
In any case, this is false equivalence, because women often still received stricter sentences than men do for the same crime, and are less likely to be believed as witnesses.
It is not a false equivalence.

When you see a disproportionate amount of African-Americans in prison - you immediately assume racism - without considering any other variables.

If you were consistent - you would also assume sexism because of the disproportionate number of males to females in prison.

However - as you have clearly pointed out - you consider other variables to explain the disproportionate number of males to females in prison.

Why don’t you consider other variables when looking at the disproportionate amount of African-Americans in prison other than racism?

Your claim that women receive stricter sentences than men for the same crime is unequivocally wrong. I don’t know where you got this false idea from.

Some new feminist tripe, no doubt. Fudging the numbers. Like with the “pay gap” or “wage gap” nonsense.

And not only do I not agree with your claim that women are less likely to be believed as witnesses, but even if that were true - it would not be an example of a systemic issue - so why bring it up?

Are you sure you weren’t thinking about Sharia court?
The question is: why do you think that is?
For example, do you believe that black people are somehow just GENETICALLY predisposed to commit more crime?
Let me stop you right there - because you ask me questions like these all throughout your posts - as not-so-veiled attempts to paint me as a racist.

So let me say - for the record - it is a fact that African-Americans commit a disproportionate amount of crime.

However, I believe that anyone who claims that a person’s race is the explanation for any disparity is ignorant, irresponsible and may be motivated by bigotry.

This same conclusion applies to those who claim that race is the explanation for why a disproportionate amount of African-Americans are represented in the justice system.

It is an ignorant and irresponsible claim to make and may be motivated by bigotry.

I will not address any of your other questions asking if I am a racist.
1) The environments in which a large amount of criminality germinates (for example, poverty) tends to be more commonly found in black communities.
Or:
2) Black people are disproportionately targeted as the perpetrators of crimes, regardless of the rate at which they actually commit them (i.e: even if we assume a black person and a white white person are equally likely to commit a criminal act, even if BOTH DO, the black person is more likely to be tried and found guilty).

Or, of course, some combination of the above factors.
I am inclined to the first option and because of this inclination I cannot come fully on board with the second.

If those who grew up in impoverished communities commit a disproportionate amount of crime - then wouldn’t it stand to reason that they would also be disproportionately represented in the justice system?

Poverty is not racial and those who grow up in poverty are more likely to commit crime. These are facts.
Once you've established that, you then have to go further and ask WHY are the above things true.
Why does poverty lead to crime?

I believe because it generates ignorance and hopelessness - but I believe that the more important question is, “Why is there so much poverty in the U.S.?”

After sifting through a bunch of data analysis the Brookings Institution came up with three simple responsibilities that every teenager should adopt before they enter into adulthood:
  • Graduate high school
  • Wait until age 21 to get married and have children
  • Get and keep a full-time job
They claim that out of all American adults who followed these guidelines only 2% are in poverty while nearly 75% have joined the middle class.

Back in 2008, then Senator Barack Obama gave an address on Father’s Day at the Apostolic Church of God in Chicago. He claimed that, "children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and 20 times more likely to end up in prison."

Nearly 80% of African-American babies are born to unmarried mothers, while only 25% could be said of “Non-Hispanic” Whites.

African-American high school drop-out rate more than doubles that of “Non-Hispanic” Whites.

Don’t these facts mean that African-Americans are much more likely to live in poverty than “Non-Hispanic” Whites? Much more likely to end up in prison?

I’m just glad that the African-American unemployment rate is hitting all time lows. It gives me hope that these other factors that lead to poverty could also be changed.

My point is that a person may not be able to choose if they are born into poverty - but they can choose whether or not to stay in poverty.

However, I am inclined to consider that the plight of poverty on the African-American community is a special case because I believe that the Democrat’s “War on Poverty” that was started in the 1960’s has actively kept African-Americans in poverty by encouraging and financially incentivizing single-parent households.

Single-parent households in the black community made up only about 25% back in 1965, but it’s almost a whopping 80% today.

You can judge this however you want - but I am inclined to believe that it is poor life choices - which may or may not be motivated by a desire for welfare - that caused such devastating blows to the African-American community.
It is, for example, simply true that black people tend to received harsher sentences than white people do for the same crimes, so there must be at least a degree of systemic injustice.
That depends on what you consider an “injustice”.

Consider the source you provided.

In Figure 4.3 where it compares “Odds of Imprisonment” it claimed that those offenders who have dependents are less likely to be imprisoned than those without dependents.

The same was claimed about those offenders who had some college compared to those who never attended college.

It could be argued that the fact that these variables can alter the odds of whether or not an offender is imprisoned should be considered an “injustice”.

I’ll leave you to judge that for yourself.

Your source also claimed in figure 4.5 that these two variables (Dependents and College) also affect the length of imprisonment.

Basically, a man who has no dependents would (on average) receive a harsher sentence than a man who has dependents.

Also, a man who went to college would receive a less severe sentence (on average) than a man who never went to college.

So, I need to ask - in regards to your claim that “black people receive harsher sentences than white people for the same crime, so there must be racism” - did you consider these two other variables mentioned in your source?

Your source claims that an African-American man who has dependents would (on average) receive a less severe punishment than an African-American man who committed the same crime if he had no dependents.

Which leads us to wonder - Would an African-American man who attended college and who had dependents receive the same punishment as a “Non-Hispanic” White man who never attended college and who had no dependents - if they committed the same crime?

I personally don't know, but I do know that the average African-American man is less likely to have attended college or have dependents than the average “Non-Hispanic” White man.

When you consider these facts - could they explain some of this disparity that we are seeing?

Also, your source claimed under the sub-heading “Do these findings confirm the discrimination hypothesis?” (Right before Figure 4.7),

“While any unexplained differences in the likelihood of incarceration or in the lengths of prison terms imposed on minority and majority offenders is cause for examination, there is reason to doubt that these racial and ethnic effects reflect deep-seated prejudices or stereotypes among judges.” (Bold and italics added)

Even the source you referenced claims that there is reason to doubt your conclusion.
But even if we ignore this and assume that there is no systemic injustice in punishing black people and all black convictions are as equally valid as white convictions, you still have to deal with the question of why a disproportionate number of black people commit crimes, and - unless you are a massive racist - the only reasonable conclusion to come to is that American society functions in such a way that makes it simply more likely on average for black people to commit crimes, which means that there must still be some form of systemic injustice.
Not at all. As I said in my previous post to you - it’s based on culture - not race.

African-Americans - for whatever reason - are making decisions that keep them in poverty - thus making them more likely to commit crimes.

I am inclined to believe that a huge motivator is the Democrat instituted financial incentives for single-parent households.
Because, if the system were completely fair, the only explanation would be that black people are inherently more likely to be criminals, which is blatantly racist (and not supported by any evidence whatsoever).
It is a fact that African-Americans commit a disproportionate amount of crime. It is not racist to state facts.

You believe that since African-Americans make up approximately 13% of the population than they should only make up 13% of all arrests/prisoners, or the system is racist?

That’s a complete fantasy. We should imprison those who commit crimes - despite their race.

African-American males, who make up approximately 6.5% of the population are responsible for committing over 50% of the nation’s homicides. It is not racist to state that fact.

Your understanding is, “Since we don’t live in a fantasy world - the system is racist.”
 
Last edited:

JesusKnowsYou

Active Member
This is a perfect example of why you're not equipped to judge whether or not systemic oppression exists. You honestly believe that you cannot be systemically oppressed because of the colour of your skin unless the people oppressing you specifically state that it's the colour of your skin that is the reason for it. Think about that for a few minutes, and you should see the flaw in it.
You claimed that the fact that African-Americans were more likely to be arrested than “non-Hispanic” Whites was evidence of racism.

I said in response, “Also, unless the reason for arrest is - "You're black" - you can't claim that this is an example of systematic oppression due to race.”

What I meant by this was - You can’t just assume that there is racism. You are going to need to provide actual proof of racism.

So, unless the arrest record states that the reason for the arrest was - “You’re black” - you have zero proof that the arrest was made based on the race of the individual.

Now, I am not saying that racism does not exist or that there are no racist police officers out there.

What I am saying - though - is that I’m not going to assume that all police officers are racist or that every African-American was arrested because of their race - especially with zero proof.

Noting a racial disparity is not evidence of racism or systemic oppression.
Because that's literally the only difference.
Not according to the source you provided.

Apparently, judges take all kinds of variables into account when deciding to imprison someone or how long someone’s sentence should be, such as if they have dependents or if they ever went to college.

Your source even claimed that there was reason to doubt your conclusion.
Then you must ask the question "why do black people regularly have worse credit?"

You're essentially laying out the ways in which systems exist that oppress black people.
I’m all ears. Explain how credit is a system that oppresses black people.
I'm certain you're completely unfamiliar with any feminist "script".
Are you claiming that feminists do not argue that women are less likely to be promoted?
Again - WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IS?
Again - it is cultural. They are taught - by someone in their community - to resist the authority of law enforcement.
Or do you possibly think that black people are more likely to flee because they are more likely to be beaten and killed by the police than white people are?
This makes no sense.

You basically agree with me that African-Americans are more likely to flee or resist arrest - but you somehow blame the police officers for using force to stop those who flee or resist arrest?

Are you claiming that all these African-Americans who flee or resist arrest have committed no crime? That these police officers are just coming up to innocent African-Americans - for no reason other than their racism - and arresting them for nothing?

Or - on the other hand- are police officers doing their jobs, following leads and trying to apprehend offenders of the law?

I believe that African-Americans are having a disproportionate amount of encounters with law enforcement because they are committing a disproportionate amount of crime.
This argument also ignores the fact that black people are far more likely to be assaulted by police officers than white people are - even when they do not flee or resist arrest. They are also more likely to target black people for arrest in general, regardless of actual crime rates. For example, even when rates of drug use between black and white people are roughly the same, black people are still more than twice as likely to be arrested for drug-related crimes
Do you have another source for this other than Vox?
And why do you think that is?
Why do I think this is not an example of systemic oppression or why do I think African-Americans are more likely to be victims of violence in general?
Of course you do.
You think it’s just a coincidence that the most impoverished African-American communities are located in Democrat-ran cities?

The “War on Poverty” has been going on since the 60’s and it has not gotten any better.
I'm just going to ignore this incredibly annoying recurring nonsense.
Now you know how I feel when you and others keep claiming that African-Americans are perpetual victims and that all their problems are the result of racism.

However, unlike you and others, I can handle hearing opinions that disagree with me own. I don’t ignore things I don’t agree with.

How does it feel to live inside an Echo Chamber?
Problem is, neither party is representing minorities proportionately. Even if we're not talking about electable individuals and just the workers and speakers within government.
Neither party can force anyone to run for office or work for the government.

What problem are you claiming there is and how would you deal with it?
Not the point, and you know it.
On the contrary - race seems to be your only point.
Your naivety.
Ugh. You’re just…ugh.

You claiming that I am naive does not make it so. You need to actually put some effort into your ad hominems.
If you're unwilling to understand or accept how race can play a significant role in electoral processes, I can't help you.
What? That has not been what we are talking about.

You claimed that the People’s right to vote for who they want to vote for is an example of systemic racism because if they don’t vote for the African-American - then they are racist.

No one said that race cannot play a factor in our elections.

For example, Barack Obama won two terms as U.S. President and a Nobel Peace Prize - simply for being black.

So, yeah, I understand that race can play a part in our elections - but that is not evidence of systemic racism.

People are going to vote for who they want to vote for.

You and the Democrats are always going to complain about the system being corrupt until it works in your favor one day and you get your way.

Then you’ll praise the system.

It’s just like I said before, “It is the mentality of whiny spoiled losers to accept the rules of a competition - but then blame an unfavorable outcome on unseen or imaginary factors.”
That's not something I said. I said people are actively discouraged from voting for black candidates - not that it is the ONLY reason they lose an election.
You said in Post #608,

“When you have a community that votes against black people because of either ingrained racism, or a governmental system that actively prevents black people from obtaining positions of power, that is systematic oppression.”

You blamed an African-American losing on the voter’s “ingrained racism” - there was no mention of anyone “actively discouraging” anyone from voting for the African-American.

You did use the word “actively” to claim that our governmental system “actively prevents black people from obtaining positions of power” - with no examples.

It’s just more made up claims with nothing to support them.
A system that is regularly set up to discourage minority groups from being represented.
How?
I don't have to - you've already said it all yourself. Black people are poorer, more likely to be punished disproportionately and come from communities with less opportunities.
Not all African-Americans are poor.

I would claim that since African-Americans commit a disproportionate amount of crime - they are receiving an accurate amount of punishment. This is, of course, in general.

I never claimed that they were being punished disproportionately to the amount of crime they have committed.

All citizens of the United States have equality of opportunity.
By being a great speaker and politician, and arriving at a time when the electorate desired a politician with his policies.

Also, having one white parent might have helped.
That’s a weird way to say - Because he was black.
It really doesn't. Having one positive example of success within a group does not mean that the system isn't set up unfairly against that particular group.
First off - the U.S. Presidency is the ultimate example of success.

Second - You truly believe that that was the only example of success?

Third - You still have yet to supply a single example of any systemic racism.
I don't. But when you look at all of the available data and ASK where the disparity comes from, your only real options are systemic injustice or just "black people are inferior".
Only to the very simple-minded. Or those looking for confirmation bias.
Such as...?
Read the first source you provided.
I hate to say it, but - who here believes a magic man nailed to some wood came back to life, again?
I skipped over some of your comments. They were very repetitive.

Why do you “hate to say” this? You have every right to voice your opinion.

To answer your question - It’s me! I do! I believe that the Lord Jesus Christ rose from the dead.

I love sharing my opinion.
It's hilarious that you say this after this post that lays out all the ways in which systemic oppression exists.
Yeah...this never happened.

You literally shared nothing that laid out anything about systemic oppression.

You just shared ambiguous information and claimed that it proved something that it never did.

Not even people who believe in a dead Jewish guy coming back to life are this delusional.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
I would say the same in regards to the African-American community and culture.

It is structured in such a way that its members are encouraged to and are more able to commit illegal acts.
The question is why do you think that is?

It is not a false equivalence.

When you see a disproportionate amount of African-Americans in prison - you immediately assume racism - without considering any other variables.
False. Other variable HAVE been considered. This wasn't a conclusion I jumped to randomly. The fact is that the other variables are not sufficient enough to explain the widespread discrepancy.

If you were consistent - you would also assume sexism because of the disproportionate number of males to females in prison.
No, because the frameworks are different. It's not just about sheer number within the demographic, it's about what the social causes are that lead to it. When you consider that men are often seen as physically more capable, more encouraged to violence, more associated with criminality, and generally given more agency than women, it's not hard to understand why men tend to commit more crime - and it's not because of a systemic bias against men. The difference between that and racial representation are significant, because what is consistently observed is black people being arrested more often, more often charged, and serving longer sentences regardless of actual crime rates. If crime rates between men and women were the same, but the arrest rate between men and women were disproportionately male, that might indicate an issue. But the rates are not the same - men DO commit significantly more crime than women. And the reasons for this are myriad, but can be accounted for by a variety of factors that do not includes sexism against men (again, you only need look around you to see American society is hugely centered around men). The discrepancy between race cannot be equally dismissed, because not only is it more significantly disproportionate, it is indicative of a longer history of racism in the USA.

However - as you have clearly pointed out - you consider other variables to explain the disproportionate number of males to females in prison.
Because they actually do. And part of it is sexism, but not the part of it you think. The variables CANNOT account for why black people are more likely be arrested and serve longer sentences than white people in thousands of cases.

Why don’t you consider other variables when looking at the disproportionate amount of African-Americans in prison other than racism?
I do.

Let me stop you right there - because you ask me questions like these all throughout your posts - as not-so-veiled attempts to paint me as a racist.
No, I'm actually doing the opposite. I'm giving you the opportunity to openly state that you are NOT racist.

So let me say - for the record - it is a fact that African-Americans commit a disproportionate amount of crime.

However, I believe that anyone who claims that a person’s race is the explanation for any disparity is ignorant, irresponsible and may be motivated by bigotry.

This same conclusion applies to those who claim that race is the explanation for why a disproportionate amount of African-Americans are represented in the justice system.

It is an ignorant and irresponsible claim to make and may be motivated by bigotry.

I will not address any of your other questions asking if I am a racist.
So, we can now accept that you are not a racist and do not believe that race plays a role in how African-Americans are treated by the justice system.

Now, with that in mind, how do you explain the consistent and widespread disparity between black and white people in the justice system - accepting, as you clearly do now, that race does not play a role in criminality?

I am inclined to the first option and because of this inclination I cannot come fully on board with the second.

If those who grew up in impoverished communities commit a disproportionate amount of crime - then wouldn’t it stand to reason that they would also be disproportionately represented in the justice system?

Poverty is not racial and those who grow up in poverty are more likely to commit crime. These are facts.
Okay. So now we have to ask the question "Why are black people more disproportionately represented IN POORER COMMUNITIES?"

Keep in mind, the answer to this question is important, because it gets to the heart of what systemic racism actually IS.

Why does poverty lead to crime?

I believe because it generates ignorance and hopelessness - but I believe that the more important question is, “Why is there so much poverty in the U.S.?”
That certainly is an important question, but another important question is why does poverty so clearly disproportionately effect black communities? To ignore the potential racial components of poverty can (and does) ignore an important historical and social aspect of how poverty arises and persists.

After sifting through a bunch of data analysis the Brookings Institution came up with three simple responsibilities that every teenager should adopt before they enter into adulthood:
  • Graduate high school
  • Wait until age 21 to get married and have children
  • Get and keep a full-time job
They claim that out of all American adults who followed these guidelines only 2% are in poverty while nearly 75% have joined the middle class.

Back in 2008, then Senator Barack Obama gave an address on Father’s Day at the Apostolic Church of God in Chicago. He claimed that, "children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and 20 times more likely to end up in prison."

Nearly 80% of African-American babies are born to unmarried mothers, while only 25% could be said of “Non-Hispanic” Whites.

African-American high school drop-out rate more than doubles that of “Non-Hispanic” Whites.

Don’t these facts mean that African-Americans are much more likely to live in poverty than “Non-Hispanic” Whites? Much more likely to end up in prison?

I’m just glad that the African-American unemployment rate is hitting all time lows. It gives me hope that these other factors that lead to poverty could also be changed.

My point is that a person may not be able to choose if they are born into poverty - but they can choose whether or not to stay in poverty.
Nope. Sorry, I was with you the entire way up to that last line.

Nobody can simply "choose" not to stay in poverty. It's not that simple. People have to work hard and - more importantly - receive opportunities that allow them to rise out of poverty and, as I feel I have sufficiently demonstrated so far, this is much, much easier for some than it is for others. And one of the facts that can significantly determine the opportunities a person receives is race.

However, I am inclined to consider that the plight of poverty on the African-American community is a special case because I believe that the Democrat’s “War on Poverty” that was started in the 1960’s has actively kept African-Americans in poverty by encouraging and financially incentivizing single-parent households.

Single-parent households in the black community made up only about 25% back in 1965, but it’s almost a whopping 80% today.

You can judge this however you want - but I am inclined to believe that it is poor life choices - which may or may not be motivated by a desire for welfare - that caused such devastating blows to the African-American community.
I'm going to ignore the political wrangling here, because all you've really done is raise more questions that implicate systemic racism. Why wold a policy that benefits single-parent households disproportionately effect black families rather than white families?
 
Last edited:

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
That depends on what you consider an “injustice”.

Consider the source you provided.

In Figure 4.3 where it compares “Odds of Imprisonment” it claimed that those offenders who have dependents are less likely to be imprisoned than those without dependents.

The same was claimed about those offenders who had some college compared to those who never attended college.

It could be argued that the fact that these variables can alter the odds of whether or not an offender is imprisoned should be considered an “injustice”.

I’ll leave you to judge that for yourself.
This is just semantics that ignores the implications of the actual facts presented.

So, I need to ask - in regards to your claim that “black people receive harsher sentences than white people for the same crime, so there must be racism” - did you consider these two other variables mentioned in your source?
Yes. They are not sufficient to explain the trend.

Your source claims that an African-American man who has dependents would (on average) receive a less severe punishment than an African-American man who committed the same crime if he had no dependents.
But would still receive a more severe punishment than a WHITE American who committed the same crimes.

Which leads us to wonder - Would an African-American man who attended college and who had dependents receive the same punishment as a “Non-Hispanic” White man who never attended college and who had no dependents - if they committed the same crime?

I personally don't know, but I do know that the average African-American man is less likely to have attended college or have dependents than the average “Non-Hispanic” White man.
Correct.

And - WHY do you think that is?

When you consider these facts - could they explain some of this disparity that we are seeing?
They actually do, but that's kind of the point. What you're actually slowly edging towards is systemic racism.

Also, your source claimed under the sub-heading “Do these findings confirm the discrimination hypothesis?” (Right before Figure 4.7),

“While any unexplained differences in the likelihood of incarceration or in the lengths of prison terms imposed on minority and majority offenders is cause for examination, there is reason to doubt that these racial and ethnic effects reflect deep-seated prejudices or stereotypes among judges.” (Bold and italics added)
Because systemic racism isn't about individual racism of judges or police. It's about the way the SYSTEM works.

Even the source you referenced claims that there is reason to doubt your conclusion.
Except my conclusion is about SYSTEMIC racism, not the racism of individual people or judges.

Not at all. As I said in my previous post to you - it’s based on culture - not race.

African-Americans - for whatever reason - are making decisions that keep them in poverty - thus making them more likely to commit crimes.
Oh dear. You just used the "making decisions" argument again.

I am inclined to believe that a huge motivator is the Democrat instituted financial incentives for single-parent households.
Of course, Democrats are to blame.

It is a fact that African-Americans commit a disproportionate amount of crime. It is not racist to state facts.
I have asked you repeatedly to explain WHY you think this fact is true. So far, you seem to be avoiding answering that question because you know that you have two choices:

1) Either state that black people are somehow genetically pre-disposed to commit crime (making you a racist, which you vehemently deny).
2) Admit that there is some form of systemic racism.

You believe that since African-Americans make up approximately 13% of the population than they should only make up 13% of all arrests/prisoners, or the system is racist?
Yes.

That’s a complete fantasy. We should imprison those who commit crimes - despite their race.
Agreed. But that doesn't explain why black people receive stricter sentences, are more likely to be arrested for similar crimes, are more likely to suffer police brutality and are more disproportionately affected by all the various factors that generate criminality (such as poverty). When you start to think about those things, you start to realize what systemic racism actually is.

African-American males, who make up approximately 6.5% of the population are responsible for committing over 50% of the nation’s homicides. It is not racist to state that fact.
No, it isn't. But it IS racist to blame this statistic on their race, rather than acknowledging systemic racism that generates this.

Your understanding is, “Since we don’t live in a fantasy world - the system is racist.”
No, my understanding is that since all of the facts show that there is systemic racism, there is systemic racism.

Even this post is rife with it. Literally, look at what you're saying above:

"There is no systemic racism in American economics - black people are just more likely to be poor."
"There is no systemic racism in American politics - black people are just more likely to be negatively impacted by government policy."
"There is no systemic racism in the American justice system - black people are just more likely to be punished and receive harsher sentences."
"There is no systemic racism in American policing - black people are just more likely to be victims of police brutality."

You're willing to acknowledge and accept all of the facts of systemic racism, but you're, for whatever reason, unwilling to accept the existence of systemic racism. You're missing the forest for the trees.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
You claimed that the fact that African-Americans were more likely to be arrested than “non-Hispanic” Whites was evidence of racism.

I said in response, “Also, unless the reason for arrest is - "You're black" - you can't claim that this is an example of systematic oppression due to race.”

What I meant by this was - You can’t just assume that there is racism. You are going to need to provide actual proof of racism.

So, unless the arrest record states that the reason for the arrest was - “You’re black” - you have zero proof that the arrest was made based on the race of the individual.

Now, I am not saying that racism does not exist or that there are no racist police officers out there.

What I am saying - though - is that I’m not going to assume that all police officers are racist or that every African-American was arrested because of their race - especially with zero proof.

Noting a racial disparity is not evidence of racism or systemic oppression.
Okay, I'm willing to approach you in good faith now, because I'm starting to see that the issue between you and me may in fact be that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what I mean when I talk about systemic racism. You hear the term "racism", and you immediately link it with the concept of individual racists - i.e: to you, racism is something that an individual person DOES because of expressedly racist views. So, when you hear me talk about "systemic racism", what you hear is me alleging that a large number of people in American society are actively choosing to enact racism. But this is not what I mean when I talk about SYSTEMIC racism, compared with just racism in general, and the distinction between the two is more than a little important.

See, when I talk about systemic racism, I don't mean to imply that there is some individual sitting in a room somewhere who makes all of these decisions about economics, police force and criminal justice who happens to be a racist, and that this individual operates the system in such a way so as to deliberately negatively impact black people. Nor am I really even saying that there are lots of individuals working within these systems who are equally racist, and make decisions every day to operate the system in a racist way.

Now, it is important to acknowledge that such people do exist, but for the purposes of discussing SYSTEMIC racism, the existence of such individuals is largely secondary. What systemic racism looks at instead is the ways in which THE SYSTEM - removed as it is from individual agents who operate within it - disproportionately affects a particular race or races. It is not enough to simply say "a police officer is racist" or "a judge is racist" or "a politician is racist". These can all be true in individual cases, but they tell us nothing about the ways in which race is AFFECTED by the systems these people operate in.

To explain further, let's look at that statistic I raised earlier about how - despite the fact that white people and black people in a particular area both used illegal drugs at a similar rate - black people were still more than twice as likely to be arrested for drug-related offences. And, for the sake of argument, let's accept the following two propositions:

1) The discrepancy in the arrest rate cannot possibly be due to increased criminality, because the rate of crime in both groups is the same, so it cannot simply be asserted that black people were "more likely" to commit this particular crime.

2) The racism of individual officers played no role in determining arrests - or, if officers were racist, it played a relatively small role in determining arrests. I.E police did not arrest anybody simply because they are black.​

So, we've accepted now that the crime rate is the same and - for the sake of argument - that racism played no role in the behaviour of individual officers making arrests. Judging from your posts, I would assume that you would be happy to accept both of these statements.

Now, once we have accepted these statements, the next challenge is to explain the discrepancy in arrests. We can no longer blame disparity in crime rates, because the rates are the same; and we cannot simply blame "racism", because we're assuming race wasn't a factor in the arrests. So, with that in mind, what other factors could possibly lead to a disproportionate number of black people being arrested for this crime?

One obvious factor could be police deployment. As we have both said, crime is closely linked with poverty, and criminality is more likely to be found in poorer areas. With this in mind, it is likely to assume that police are more often deployed to poorer areas when looking to make drug-related arrests. And, again, black people are significantly more likely to be the victims of poverty than white people (again, for whatever reason). So, when police are sent to these areas, they are more likely to make arrests of black people than white people.

Notice that the above in no way requires any individual police officer to be racist. As you said, facts aren't racist. Simply by responding (arguably appropriately) to crime statistics and demographics, police simply being deployed to particular areas and carrying out their job without any racist intentions or ideology may still be more likely to arrest black people than white people. Of course, all of this ignores the very real impact of, among other things, racial profiling. But, again, we're assuming no racism whatsoever on the part of the individuals involved in policing, and even then we are left with a system that is disproportionately affecting black people, regardless of actual criminality.

It isn't about individual racists or individual acts of racism - it is about the way the system is set up in such a way that, regardless of justification, disproportionately negatively impacts a particular race.

Not according to the source you provided.

Apparently, judges take all kinds of variables into account when deciding to imprison someone or how long someone’s sentence should be, such as if they have dependents or if they ever went to college.

Your source even claimed that there was reason to doubt your conclusion.
No, it doesn't. It thoroughly supports my conclusion. You seem to still be under the misapprehension that my argument is about individual racists rather than systemic racism.

I’m all ears. Explain how credit is a system that oppresses black people.
You said so yourself. You implied that, on the whole, black people are more likely to have worse credit.

Why do you think that is?

Again - it is cultural. They are taught - by someone in their community - to resist the authority of law enforcement.
That's ridiculous.

This makes no sense.
It makes no sense that black people are more likely to flee from police because they are more likely to be subjected to violence by the police?

You basically agree with me that African-Americans are more likely to flee or resist arrest - but you somehow blame the police officers for using force to stop those who flee or resist arrest?
Well, what explanation do you propose?

Are you claiming that all these African-Americans who flee or resist arrest have committed no crime?
Nope. Never even remotely implied that.

That these police officers are just coming up to innocent African-Americans - for no reason other than their racism - and arresting them for nothing?
Again, no. Your point was that black people are more likely to flee police (assumedly regardless of whether a crime was committed). You have yet to explain why you think this is. I have proposed the explanation that it is because black people are more likely to be victims of police violence (something that is absolutely demonstrably true) regardless of whether or not a crime has been committed.

I never said "black people flee police because they're innocent".

Or - on the other hand- are police officers doing their jobs, following leads and trying to apprehend offenders of the law?
I'm sure they are. But that doesn't explain why black people are far more likely to flee, or why they are are more likely to be victims of police violence.

I believe that African-Americans are having a disproportionate amount of encounters with law enforcement because they are committing a disproportionate amount of crime.
AND WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IS??

Why do I think this is not an example of systemic oppression or why do I think African-Americans are more likely to be victims of violence in general?
The latter.

You think it’s just a coincidence that the most impoverished African-American communities are located in Democrat-ran cities?
I think it's irrelevant. I've never made a distinction between Republican and Democratic political policy with regards to systemic racism, and such party lines are not what I'm examining.

Now you know how I feel when you and others keep claiming that African-Americans are perpetual victims and that all their problems are the result of racism.
Good thing I never did either of those things, then.

Please stop projecting.

However, unlike you and others, I can handle hearing opinions that disagree with me own. I don’t ignore things I don’t agree with.
But you're ignoring systemic racism.

How does it feel to live inside an Echo Chamber?
I'm not the one determined to feel like systemic racism doesn't exist.

You claiming that I am naive does not make it so. You need to actually put some effort into your ad hominems.
It's not an ad hominem.

What? That has not been what we are talking about.

You claimed that the People’s right to vote for who they want to vote for is an example of systemic racism because if they don’t vote for the African-American - then they are racist.
Not even remotely like anything that I've ever written.

No one said that race cannot play a factor in our elections.

For example, Barack Obama won two terms as U.S. President and a Nobel Peace Prize - simply for being black.
Are you serious?

The rest of your post is just denial and babble.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
I would say the same in regards to the African-American community and culture.

It is structured in such a way that its members are encouraged to and are more able to commit illegal acts.

It is not a false equivalence.

When you see a disproportionate amount of African-Americans in prison - you immediately assume racism - without considering any other variables.

If you were consistent - you would also assume sexism because of the disproportionate number of males to females in prison.

However - as you have clearly pointed out - you consider other variables to explain the disproportionate number of males to females in prison.

Why don’t you consider other variables when looking at the disproportionate amount of African-Americans in prison other than racism?

Your claim that women receive stricter sentences than men for the same crime is unequivocally wrong. I don’t know where you got this false idea from.

Some new feminist tripe, no doubt. Fudging the numbers. Like with the “pay gap” or “wage gap” nonsense.

And not only do I not agree with your claim that women are less likely to be believed as witnesses, but even if that were true - it would not be an example of a systemic issue - so why bring it up?

Are you sure you weren’t thinking about Sharia court?

Let me stop you right there - because you ask me questions like these all throughout your posts - as not-so-veiled attempts to paint me as a racist.

So let me say - for the record - it is a fact that African-Americans commit a disproportionate amount of crime.

However, I believe that anyone who claims that a person’s race is the explanation for any disparity is ignorant, irresponsible and may be motivated by bigotry.

This same conclusion applies to those who claim that race is the explanation for why a disproportionate amount of African-Americans are represented in the justice system.

It is an ignorant and irresponsible claim to make and may be motivated by bigotry.

I will not address any of your other questions asking if I am a racist.

I am inclined to the first option and because of this inclination I cannot come fully on board with the second.

If those who grew up in impoverished communities commit a disproportionate amount of crime - then wouldn’t it stand to reason that they would also be disproportionately represented in the justice system?

Poverty is not racial and those who grow up in poverty are more likely to commit crime. These are facts.

Why does poverty lead to crime?

I believe because it generates ignorance and hopelessness - but I believe that the more important question is, “Why is there so much poverty in the U.S.?”

After sifting through a bunch of data analysis the Brookings Institution came up with three simple responsibilities that every teenager should adopt before they enter into adulthood:
  • Graduate high school
  • Wait until age 21 to get married and have children
  • Get and keep a full-time job
They claim that out of all American adults who followed these guidelines only 2% are in poverty while nearly 75% have joined the middle class.

Back in 2008, then Senator Barack Obama gave an address on Father’s Day at the Apostolic Church of God in Chicago. He claimed that, "children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and 20 times more likely to end up in prison."

Nearly 80% of African-American babies are born to unmarried mothers, while only 25% could be said of “Non-Hispanic” Whites.

African-American high school drop-out rate more than doubles that of “Non-Hispanic” Whites.

Don’t these facts mean that African-Americans are much more likely to live in poverty than “Non-Hispanic” Whites? Much more likely to end up in prison?

I’m just glad that the African-American unemployment rate is hitting all time lows. It gives me hope that these other factors that lead to poverty could also be changed.

My point is that a person may not be able to choose if they are born into poverty - but they can choose whether or not to stay in poverty.

However, I am inclined to consider that the plight of poverty on the African-American community is a special case because I believe that the Democrat’s “War on Poverty” that was started in the 1960’s has actively kept African-Americans in poverty by encouraging and financially incentivizing single-parent households.

Single-parent households in the black community made up only about 25% back in 1965, but it’s almost a whopping 80% today.

You can judge this however you want - but I am inclined to believe that it is poor life choices - which may or may not be motivated by a desire for welfare - that caused such devastating blows to the African-American community.

That depends on what you consider an “injustice”.

Consider the source you provided.

In Figure 4.3 where it compares “Odds of Imprisonment” it claimed that those offenders who have dependents are less likely to be imprisoned than those without dependents.

The same was claimed about those offenders who had some college compared to those who never attended college.

It could be argued that the fact that these variables can alter the odds of whether or not an offender is imprisoned should be considered an “injustice”.

I’ll leave you to judge that for yourself.

Your source also claimed in figure 4.5 that these two variables (Dependents and College) also affect the length of imprisonment.

Basically, a man who has no dependents would (on average) receive a harsher sentence than a man who has dependents.

Also, a man who went to college would receive a less severe sentence (on average) than a man who never went to college.

So, I need to ask - in regards to your claim that “black people receive harsher sentences than white people for the same crime, so there must be racism” - did you consider these two other variables mentioned in your source?

Your source claims that an African-American man who has dependents would (on average) receive a less severe punishment than an African-American man who committed the same crime if he had no dependents.

Which leads us to wonder - Would an African-American man who attended college and who had dependents receive the same punishment as a “Non-Hispanic” White man who never attended college and who had no dependents - if they committed the same crime?

I personally don't know, but I do know that the average African-American man is less likely to have attended college or have dependents than the average “Non-Hispanic” White man.

When you consider these facts - could they explain some of this disparity that we are seeing?

Also, your source claimed under the sub-heading “Do these findings confirm the discrimination hypothesis?” (Right before Figure 4.7),

“While any unexplained differences in the likelihood of incarceration or in the lengths of prison terms imposed on minority and majority offenders is cause for examination, there is reason to doubt that these racial and ethnic effects reflect deep-seated prejudices or stereotypes among judges.” (Bold and italics added)

Even the source you referenced claims that there is reason to doubt your conclusion.

Not at all. As I said in my previous post to you - it’s based on culture - not race.

African-Americans - for whatever reason - are making decisions that keep them in poverty - thus making them more likely to commit crimes.

I am inclined to believe that a huge motivator is the Democrat instituted financial incentives for single-parent households.

It is a fact that African-Americans commit a disproportionate amount of crime. It is not racist to state facts.

You believe that since African-Americans make up approximately 13% of the population than they should only make up 13% of all arrests/prisoners, or the system is racist?

That’s a complete fantasy. We should imprison those who commit crimes - despite their race.

African-American males, who make up approximately 6.5% of the population are responsible for committing over 50% of the nation’s homicides. It is not racist to state that fact.

Your understanding is, “Since we don’t live in a fantasy world - the system is racist.”
Your beliefs are not backed up by the available data and are therefore, just your beliefs.
I have no idea why, but you continue to ignore the long-term consequences of the role slavery has played within the black community in the United States.
Your disdain for feminism is also duly noted.
 

JesusKnowsYou

Active Member
Sarcasm, facetiousness and rhetoric are not your strong suits are they?
What do you mean?

Are you claiming that I am not good at detecting these things or at expressing these things?

What even led you to say this?
And btw, homosexuality is not a practice.
Thank you for sharing your opinion.

A "practice" could be defined as "a way of doing something". In that sense - any and all expressions of sexuality can be referred to as a "practice".
Homosexuality does not have to be “justified”.
How you feel about homosexuality is how I feel about my beliefs. Neither need justification.

Even though I do not believe that homosexuality is justifiable - I asked you to justify homosexuality after you asked me to justify my beliefs.

However - to be clear - you did not ask me to justify my beliefs in your initial post to me (despite what you claim).

Rather than own up to the fact that you "misspoke" (i.e. lied) you claimed that I was lacking some skill.

You may not need to justify homosexuality, but you should try to justify your irresponsible behavior.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
What do you mean?

Are you claiming that I am not good at detecting these things or at expressing these things?

Well, you have misconstrued a lot of what I’ve said.

What even led you to say this?

Your consistent misinterpretation of my comments about a lousy sex life, or the sex not being that great, for example. That was sarcasm. Twisting everything everyone has said when you were challenged on anything.

A "practice" could be defined as "a way of doing something". In that sense - any and all expressions of sexuality can be referred to as a "practice".

Bull****. One doesn’t “practice” heterosexuality or homosexuality. I mean, does one become a better homosexual the more he does it? Puts his shoulder to the grindstone? Does he become a grand master at some point? How long does he have to practice? And just what’s in the Homosexual Practice Handbook? Who comes up with this tripe?

How you feel about homosexuality is how I feel about my beliefs. Neither need justification.

Even though I do not believe that homosexuality is justifiable - I asked you to justify homosexuality after you asked me to justify my beliefs.

Not at all the same or even close. You choose to be Christian just as I choose to be Hindu. However, I did not, I repeat, and read these words carefully... did not choose to be attracted to or aroused by men, any more than you are ostensibly attracted to women.

So I ask you again, what is it about homosexuality that would make someone choose to be something most of society has hated and persecuted? Running risks of being denied employment, housing, and life. I submit that it’s something that shakes the foundations of your world and beliefs. Therefore, the only remaining answer you can process is that it’s a choice.

However - to be clear - you did not ask me to justify my beliefs in your initial post to me (despite what you claim).

Rather than own up to the fact that you "misspoke" (i.e. lied) you claimed that I was lacking some skill.

You may not need to justify homosexuality, but you should try to justify your irresponsible behavior.

I am a lot of things, but one thing I am not is a liar, deceitful or anything along those lines. I’m not smart enough. Believe me, I’m really pretty dumb. But your talent for spinning puts a whirling dervish to shame.
 
Top