Finally! A list of BLM demands!

[Spartanmack]

As if I'm going to say a white person or black person can't be objective in these issues? Really? That's trump logic

so it must be that the reference is racist, since the most obvious and logical explanation can't be true - it's completely unreasonable for someone to think a race baiter might see yet another instance of bias?

 

[Sbee]

It's not obvious that fighting the demand side is better. it hasn't worked in the Netherlands.

There will still be problems with abuse but we could improve on the 678 per 100000 rotting in prison to the tune of 31k per year. Tougher sentencing and mandatory minimims have done little to impact utilization. the selective targeting in poor urban areas and you can see that our drug policies need to be changed.

 

[Sbee]

so it must be that the reference is racist, since the most obvious and logical explanation can't be true - it's completely unreasonable for someone to think a race baiter might see yet another instance of bias?

It's stupid to even mention it.

 

[Spartanmack]

There will still be problems with abuse but we could improve on the 678 per 100000 rotting in prison to the tune of 31k per year. Tougher sentencing and mandatory minimims have done little to impact utilization. the selective targeting in poor urban areas and you can see that our drug policies need to be changed.

The crime bills of the 90s may not have done much for utilization but tougher sentencing and mandatory minimums have had a significant impact on what they were meant for...crime.

What you call a failure looks like success

And no matter how many different ways you say it, drug laws and their enforcement are not racist.

 

[Spartanmack]

It's stupid to even mention it.

It's worth pointing out based on your predisposition that race plays a role in nearly everything. At worst, it's no big deal - but of course, you made it one.

 

[tomdalton22]

Yes, drug dealing is a violent enterprise, look at Mexico for example. My suggestion is to fight the demand side vs the supply side. Fighting the supply is inherently expensive with court costs, prisons, drug enforcement, social costs, etc. As long as the demand is there then there will be horrible gang violence. You'll never eliminate the demand but lessening it is smarter policy than locking people up at 30k per year so someone else can take his place on the street the next day and then end up on prison sometime down the road.

Fighting the demand is a lot better than fighting the supply. People who want drugs will always be able to find them.

But your "answer" to fighting the demand side is to treat drug users at a cost of $10K-$20K a month when we all know most don't want to quit. Send a drug user to rehab at a cost of $40K, put him back on the street so he can go buy some more drugs?

 

[Sbee]

The crime bills of the 90s may not have done much for utilization but tougher sentencing and mandatory minimums have had a significant impact on what they were meant for...crime.

What you call a failure looks like success

And no matter how many different ways you say it, drug laws and their enforcement are not racist.

Funny you should bring that up, there are a number of studies that show that legalized abortion leads to a sharp decline in crime. Roe V Wade was 1973, males 18-24 are most likely to engage in criminal activity. Women not being forced to raise and care for children they didn't want led to decreased crime rates, that curve shows a sharp drop right when children who would have been born after 1973 are hitting their peak crime years. The states that legalized abortion earlier had steeper drops in crime.

 

[tomdalton22]

Funny you should bring that up, there are a number of studies that show that legalized abortion leads to a sharp decline in crime. Roe V Wade was 1973, males 18-24 are most likely to engage in criminal activity. Women not being forced to raise and care for children they didn't want led to decreased crime rates, that curve shows a sharp drop right when children who would have been born after 1973 are hitting their peak crime years. The states that legalized abortion earlier had steeper drops in crime.

they should have abortion clinics and drug rehab facilities on every street corner in poor neighborhoods. That should fix everything!

 

[Sbee]

But your "answer" to fighting the demand side is to treat drug users at a cost of $10K-$20K a month when we all know most don't want to quit. Send a drug user to rehab at a cost of $40K, put him back on the street so he can go buy some more drugs?

My god, someone doesn't go to rehab for years and years but you can go to jail for that long, add in all of the other costs and our laws are prohibitively more expensive with no benefit in terms of usage. Never mind what kind of society you want to live in, one that locks up more people than anywhere else in the world for nonviolent offenses?

Also, you might want to avoid the sweeping generalizations based on god knows what, like "we all know most don't want to quit." what is that based on? I'm assuming you don't consider addiction to be a disease either

 

[Spartanmack]

Funny you should bring that up, there are a number of studies that show that legalized abortion leads to a sharp decline in crime. Roe V Wade was 1973, males 18-24 are most likely to engage in criminal activity. Women not being forced to raise and care for children they didn't want led to decreased crime rates, that curve shows a sharp drop right when children who would have been born after 1973 are hitting their peak crime years. The states that legalized abortion earlier had steeper drops in crime.

yeah I read freakenomics too. That's your classic correlation vs. causation. Steven Pinker kinda blew that one up in the book The Better Angels of Our Nature. Here's an excerpt...

In fact, the proportion of unwanted children could even have increased if women were emboldened by the abortion option to have more unprotected sex in the heat of the moment, but then procrastinated or had second thoughts once they were pregnant. That may help explain why in the years since 1973 the proportion of children born to women in the most vulnerable categories – poor, single, teenage, and African American – did not decrease, as the freakonomics theory would predict. It increased, and by a lot.

pesky data, always getting in the way. here's another good one that addresses a point you've been hammering about women who have abortions - but it also further debunks the freakonomics...

What about differences among individual women within a crime-prone population? Here the freakonomics theory would seem to get things backwards. Among women who are accidentally pregnant and unprepared to raise a child, the ones who terminate their pregnancies are likely to be forward-thinking, realistic, and disciplined, whereas the ones who carry the child to term are more likely to be fatalistic, disorganized, or immaturely focused on the thought of a cute baby rather than an unruly adolescent. Several studies have borne this out. Young pregnant women who opt for abortions get better grades, are less likely to be on welfare, and are more likely to finish school than their counterparts who have miscarriages or carry their pregnancies to term. The availability of abortion thus may have led to a generation that is more prone to crime because it weeded out just the children who, whether through genes or environment, were most likely to exercise maturity and self-control.

Here's a good synopsis if you don't want to read the whole book...

https://uncertaintyblog.com/2013/08...the-freakonomics-crime-theory/comment-page-1/

 

[tomdalton22]

My god, someone doesn't go to rehab for years and years but you can go to jail for that long, add in all of the other costs and our laws are prohibitively more expensive with no benefit in terms of usage. Never mind what kind of society you want to live in, one that locks up more people than anywhere else in the world for nonviolent offenses?

Also, you might want to avoid the sweeping generalizations based on god knows what, like "we all know most don't want to quit." what is that based on? I'm assuming you don't consider addiction to be a disease either

It's not a disease...it's a choice

 

[Spartanmack]

you know, sbee, it's funny how your arguments are always based on a the description of a study that shows something supported by the proclaimed existence of several other studies that support it, but never any actual studies or numbers. You attempt to impugn my character with accusations of knee-jerk racist reactions or being a selfish prick. And I consistently post links to articles, summaries of studies with actual data, I demonstrate why your accusations are false and ask you to provide any evidence to support them. And your response is you're not going to dig up old posts and that I'm the one who glosses over details, pretending they are facts.

You're f'n weak man.

 

[Sbee]

yeah I read freakenomics too. That's your classic correlation vs. causation. Steven Pinker kinda blew that one up in the book The Better Angels of Our Nature. Here's an excerpt...



pesky data.

Here's a good synopsis if you don't want to read the whole book...

https://uncertaintyblog.com/2013/08...the-freakonomics-crime-theory/comment-page-1/

funny that a study in sweden 7 years before roe v wade showed that the women who were denied abortions were more likely to raise children in adverse conditions and were more likely to engage in criminal activity. The Rockefeller commission in 1972 showed similar results.

I do agree that overall more unmarried women have been having children as marriage rates decline, more than 50% of women under 30 having their first child are unmarried. Pinker doesn't differentiate wanted from unwanted though, women after 1972 had the choice. His theory about people having second thoughts and having a child really doesn't hold up, how is the baby unwanted when the mother chose to have the baby? Sounds like some motivated reasoning to me, but then again, so does everything that you post.

 

[Sbee]

It's not a disease...it's a choice

Maybe you should stick to trolling MSU sports. Neurologists disagree with you.

 

[Sbee]

you know, sbee, it's funny how your arguments are always based on a the description of a study that shows something supported by the proclaimed existence of several other studies that support it, but never any actual studies or numbers. You attempt to impugn my character with accusations of knee-jerk racist reactions or being a selfish prick. And I consistently post links to articles, summaries of studies with actual data, I demonstrate why your accusations are false and ask you to provide any evidence to support them. And your response is you're not going to dig up old posts and that I'm the one who glosses over details, pretending they are facts.

You're f'n weak man.

If you want the links, I'll post them all. I wouldn't just make shit up and post it, I'm sure you're googling the studies and then trying to find a corresponding study to poke holes in it. I guess I'll save you the time and post links from now on.

As for you being a selfish prick, you show zero empathy unless it's towards a fetus the size of a lentil. You show no empathy towards the poor or disenfranchised, never towards minorities, I can't recall you ever acknowledging the existence of racism in any modern circumstance. I'm sure you care for the people that are close to you, but if they're outside of your circle, well, fuck em! Make those blacks get an ID in order to combat a non existent problem and lock up those poor minorities for drug possession at 3x the rate of whites, make sure America continues to have the highest incarceration rate in the world, as long as it doesn't affect your inner circle.

 

[Spartanmack]

funny that a study in sweden 7 years before roe v wade showed that the women who were denied abortions were more likely to raise children in adverse conditions and were more likely to engage in criminal activity. The Rockefeller commission in 1972 showed similar results.

I do agree that overall more unmarried women have been having children as marriage rates decline, more than 50% of women under 30 having their first child are unmarried. Pinker doesn't differentiate wanted from unwanted though, women after 1972 had the choice. His theory about people having second thoughts and having a child really doesn't hold up, how is the baby unwanted when the mother chose to have the baby? Sounds like some motivated reasoning to me, but then again, so does everything that you post.

We all know most abortions are performed on poor women in urban areas and we already know those communities have higher crime rates. Thanks Sweden, for that obvious bit of information.

Motivated reasoning? Could you miss the point by more? That's not his theory at all. I especially like the question about how could a child be unwanted if it was carried to term - could you be any more ridiculous? Did you miss the actual point point, that births to poor, single, teenage African American women actually went up after Roe v. Wade? It was emboldened and italicized.

 

[Spartanmack]

If you want the links, I'll post them all. I wouldn't just make shit up and post it, I'm sure you're googling the studies and then trying to find a corresponding study to poke holes in it. I guess I'll save you the time and post links from now on.

As for you being a selfish prick, you show zero empathy unless it's towards a fetus the size of a lentil. You show no empathy towards the poor or disenfranchised, never towards minorities, I can't recall you ever acknowledging the existence of racism in any modern circumstance. I'm sure you care for the people that are close to you, but if they're outside of your circle, well, fuck em! Make those blacks get an ID in order to combat a non existent problem and lock up those poor minorities for drug possession at 3x the rate of whites, make sure America continues to have the highest incarceration rate in the world, as long as it doesn't affect your inner circle.

how do I not show empathy to them? by not acknowledging myths that you happen to believe. by not supporting policies that you promote which actually hurt them, rather than help them? I haven't acknowledged systemic, institutionalized racism in America today because it doesn't exist. I fully acknowledge that racism exists - it always has and it always will. And I've condemned obvious cases of racism but they're all anecdotal and most of the high profile cases we've discussed here have been demonstrated to have nothing to do with race. The facts simply do not support your position. It stands to reason, if your reasons for the cause are incorrect, your solutions are too.

You can put words in my mouth like f these people or single moms are whores, but those are your words, not mine. I've never uttered anything like that to you or anyone else publicly or privately. I think all people should have to get an ID to vote, not just "those blacks". The fact that I don't agree with your opinions and I think your solutions actually perpetuate the problems doesn't mean I don't have empathy for them, it just means I disagree with you, and I have the data to support my position. You're the only asshole in this conversation - you're the asshole who makes generalizations and accusations of people who don't agree with you.

 

[tomdalton22]

Maybe you should stick to trolling MSU sports. Neurologists disagree with you.

Some do and some don't. Just like some Doctors think a life starts when a baby is a fetus and some say it's the moment they take a breath.

 

[Sbee]

Some do and some don't. Just like some Doctors think a life starts when a baby is a fetus and some say it's the moment they take a breath.

If you think that addiction is a conscious choice and people want to be junkies then we really can't have much of a discussion.

 

[Sbee]

how do I not show empathy to them? by not acknowledging myths that you happen to believe. by not supporting policies that you promote which actually hurt them, rather than help them? I haven't acknowledged systemic, institutionalized racism in America today because it doesn't exist. I fully acknowledge that racism exists - it always has and it always will. And I've condemned obvious cases of racism but they're all anecdotal and most of the high profile cases we've discussed here have been demonstrated to have nothing to do with race. The facts simply do not support your position. It stands to reason, if your reasons for the cause are incorrect, your solutions are too.

You can put words in my mouth like f these people or single moms are whores, but those are your words, not mine. I've never uttered anything like that to you or anyone else publicly or privately. I think all people should have to get an ID to vote, not just "those blacks". The fact that I don't agree with your opinions and I think your solutions actually perpetuate the problems doesn't mean I don't have empathy for them, it just means I disagree with you, and I have the data to support my position. You're the only asshole in this conversation - you're the asshole who makes generalizations and accusations of people who don't agree with you.

Right, the voting rights act hurts minorities, allowing early voting helps minorities, arresting them at 3x the rate of whites for drug possession helps them, right? You are such a defender of the poor and unfortunate in this country. You can't honestly say that these voter ID laws and ending early voting aren't targeted at poor blacks to keep them from voting for democrats, I guess you could say it, you'd simply be wrong or just trying to be a huge prick. You care so much about minorities that you want to make it more difficult for them to vote because you're worried about these people getting back in line and voting multiple times? Give me a fucking break with that shit. I don't specifically think they're targeted because they're black, it's that they're poor and vote for democrats, it's easy to put up roadblocks to stop poor people from getting out to vote. Blacks are arrested for possession at 3x the rate of whites, but of course you're ok with that too, you defend that disparity when it's blatant injustice. When police go looking for drug arrests they find easy targets in highly populated urban centers. What do you think would be the case if whites were incarcerated at 3x the rate of blacks for the same crime that they commit at similar rates? I'm sure you just like being an asshole though, I'm not sure you really even believe the positions you take, you just want to argue. You're just a selfish wall street asshole, I'm not characterizing all of them, just you.

Here are some links for the stats that I just used so you can scour the internet for a counter argument

white vs black drug use

http://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/NSDUHresultsPDFWHTML2013/Web/NSDUHresults2013.pdf

blacks more likely to be in jail for drug charges

http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/le...ts/sentencing_and_corrections/onein100pdf.pdf


http://www.naacp.org/pages/criminal-justice-fact-sheet