[One Degree]

Yes, race is irrelevant and these other factors are actually relevant.



No, this is not only wrong but irrelevant.



It was the obvious claim of the racist propaganda you cited.

Again, people who are jobless, uneducated, etc, are more likely to kill their wives. Race is irrelevant.

The fact that more black men have to deal with these issues is because of historical racism and marginalisation.

Excusing beating and killing your wife due to racism is pathetic. You are reducing Black men to morons incapable of being responsible for their own actions. It is their problem, not society’s.

[Pants-of-dog]

No, you misunderstood.

[One Degree]

I understood. It is a cultural problem, not a racial problem. This does not allow you to simply ignore too many Black men belong to this culture. So it is legitimate to point it out and hold Black men responsible for the culture they practice. And you do not get to excuse it due to racism.

[Pants-of-dog]

And now you are being slightly racist. Since this has nothing to do with anything I wrote, I am going to ignore you now.

[One Degree]

And now you are being slightly racist. Since this has nothing to do with anything I wrote, I am going to ignore you now.

You excused their behavior due to racism. Racism is not an excuse for domestic violence.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Again, people who are jobless, uneducated, etc, are more likely to kill their wives.

Which black men seem to have more of a problem with and thus is why they are more likely to kill their wives (i mean girlfriends....as well know that marriage isn't real popular with this demographic).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4850739/

The fact that more black men have to deal with these issues is because of historical racism and marginalisation.

Not an excuse to kill women who relied on them for their safety.

You are literally defending domestic abuse because you got triggered by the word "black male"

Do you want me to use "darkie" instead?

[Pants-of-dog]

Which black men seem to have more of a problem with and thus is why they are more likely to kill their wives (i mean girlfriends....as well know that marriage isn't real popular with this demographic).

Not where I live.

Again, if you want to focus on race instead of the actual causes of spousal homicide, then how is your arumnet different from the racist propaganda you cited?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4850739/

Am I supposed to do something with this?

Not an excuse to kill women who relied on them for their safety.

You are literally defending domestic abuse because you got triggered by the word "black male"

Do you want me to use "darkie" instead?

I never excused or defended anything. This seems like a red herring and an ad hominem all in one.

Now, the study showed that race is irrelevant. So why do you keep harping on it.

It seems like you are using spousal homicide, which is not outside of the bounds of moral behaviour for you, to defend racism.

[One Degree]

Not where I live.

Again, if you want to focus on race instead of the actual causes of spousal homicide, then how is your arumnet different from the racist propaganda you cited?



Am I supposed to do something with this?



I never excused or defended anything. This seems like a red herring and an ad hominem all in one.

Now, the study showed that race is irrelevant. So why do you keep harping on it.

It seems like you are using spousal homicide, which is not outside of the bounds of moral behaviour for you, to defend racism.

Instead of believing the liberal national media that all black crime is due to racism, you need to access local media that does not totally ignore the Black pastors and other community leaders telling Black men they need to accept responsibility for this behavior. Telling them “no more excuses”. I wonder why the national media totally ignores all these good people?
You might be surprised to know Pence has supported trying to expand the influence of one small group in Indianapolis that has had success in reducing crime in Black areas.

[Pants-of-dog]

You consistently misunderstand my posts to such a degree that it would be best if you stopped replying to me.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Not where I live.

Ancedotal and therefore irrelevant.

Again, if you want to focus on race instead of the actual causes of spousal homicide, then how is your arumnet different from the racist propaganda you cited?

Calm down you are starting to misspell stuff again...

Besides, we are talking about spousal homicide and actual killings in real life and how the probability of you being the victim of spousal homicide as a white woman is significantly higher if your mate is a black man. This is a statistical fact that only goes away if we control for real-life factors that are not controlled for in real life.

Hence, if we selected people at random for a white woman to date without any other background information on them as individuals, it would be factually correct and statistically accurate to say that if she dated the random black guy, she would have a 33% more likely chance of getting murdered than if she dated one of the other random guys of a different racial background. This is a FACT.

This would be an accurate statement as it stands by itself. You have not countered this point because you don't like it.

Boo-hoo.

Am I supposed to do something with this?

Thats up to you.

I never excused or defended anything. This seems like a red herring and an ad hominem all in one.
....Now, the study showed that race is irrelevant. So why do you keep harping on it.

No, the study showed that race is ONLY irrelevant if we do a hypothetical control of contributing factors that are racially disproportionate, which is not what happens in real life.

....and yes, you are making light of real-life factors and probabilities by applying a hypothetical factor-control. In doing so, you are literally endangering women with misinformation.

For instance,

lets examine this scenario.

White Woman: "Is it more dangerous for me to date a black man or white man?"

POD: "Neither, race is not a factor"

White Woman: "But I heard that black men are 33% more likely to kill their white spouses?"

POD: "Well, thats only if we don't control for the fact that those who kill their spouses are usually into crime, drugs, being-unemployed, etc."

White-Woman: "Oh, so are those factors controlled for in real life?"

POD: " Well no."

White Woman: "So, basically black men are 33% more likely to kill me than any other race of man because they are more likely to be into crime, drugs, being uneducated, and unemployed?"

POD: "Sure, but thats only because of institutional racism making them that way, so you should just ignore that part...."

White Woman: "But how would them being historically oppressed due to racism change the fact that they are 33% more likely to kill me?"

POD: "You need to quit being so racist."

It seems like you are using spousal homicide, which is not outside of the bounds of moral behaviour for you, to defend racism.

Abusive ad-hominem used to justify an undefined term; namely, "racism."

Great job.

[One Degree]

You consistently misunderstand my posts to such a degree that it would be best if you stopped replying to me.

I don’t misunderstand your posts. You just don’t like it when I ask you to apply your idealism to reality. Your views fall apart when applied to actual people. You want to support women and minorities unquestionably in all things, but get confused when those views don’t synchronize in reality. You are trying desperately to support both Black men and women in a scenario where you can’t do both.

[Pants-of-dog]

Anecdotal and therefore irrelevant.

No.

Pointing out that your racist myth is only applicable in the USA is relevant.

Calm down you are starting to misspell stuff again...

You tend to focus on this when you are losing an argument.

Besides, we are talking about spousal homicide and actual killings in real life and how the probability of you being the victim of spousal homicide as a white woman is significantly higher if your mate is a black man. This is a statistical fact that only goes away if we control for real-life factors that are not controlled for in real life.

Hence, if we selected people at random for a white woman to date without any other background information on them as individuals, it would be factually correct and statistically accurate to say that if she dated the random black guy, she would have a 33% more likely chance of getting murdered than if she dated one of the other random guys of a different racial background. This is a FACT.

This would be an accurate statement as it stands by itself. You have not countered this point because you don't like it.

Boo-hoo.

I understand why you want to keep repeating your racist propaganda myth.

It does not change the fact that women need to look at things other than race to protect themselves.

Thats up to you.

So it was irrelevant.

No, the study showed that race is ONLY irrelevant if we do a hypothetical control of contributing factors that are racially disproportionate, which is not what happens in real life.

The words of the study are there for anyone to read.

Again, women can better protect themselves by lookingnfor the actual causes and correlates of spousal homicide than by looking at race.

Are you saying women should ignore the actual factors and focus on race instead?

....and yes, you are making light of real-life factors and probabilities by applying a hypothetical factor-control. In doing so, you are literally endangering women with misinformation.

For instance,

lets examine this scenario.

White Woman: "Is it more dangerous for me to date a black man or white man?"

POD: "Neither, race is not a factor"

White Woman: "But I heard that black men are 33% more likely to kill their white spouses?"

POD: "Well, thats only if we don't control for the fact that those who kill their spouses are usually into crime, drugs, being-unemployed, etc."

White-Woman: "Oh, so are those factors controlled for in real life?"

POD: " Well no."

White Woman: "So, basically black men are 33% more likely to kill me than any other race of man because they are more likely to be into crime, drugs, being uneducated, and unemployed?"

POD: "Sure, but thats only because of institutional racism making them that way, so you should just ignore that part...."

White Woman: "But how would them being historically oppressed due to racism change the fact that they are 33% more likely to kill me?"

POD: "You need to quit being so racist."

I am goung to just ignore these personal attacks you make when you have lost an argument.

Abusive ad-hominem used to justify an undefined term; namely, "racism."

Great job.

Well, if you do not want to seem as you are defending racist propaganda, then do not cite propaganda and then disagree withnactual studies that prove it wrong.

Besides, someone who argues that they have the right to kill their kids and wife for violating their rules is not in a position to make,these types of judgements.

——————————

I don’t misunderstand your posts. You just don’t like it when I ask you to apply your idealism to reality. Your views fall apart when applied to actual people. You want to support women and minorities unquestionably in all things, but get confused when those views don’t synchronize in reality. You are trying desperately to support both Black men and women in a scenario where you can’t do both.

You misunderstand all the time.

Younalso domthis thing where you attack my moral character instead of addressing my argument.

Because of these two things, replying to you is often a waste of time.

[One Degree]

I did not attack your moral character @Pants-of-dog , I attacked your reasoning. I have no problem with your personal bigotry choices.

[Pants-of-dog]

And now you just did it again.

[One Degree]

And now you just did it again.

How? Are you claiming you are free of bigotry?

[Victoribus Spolia]

No.

Pointing out that your racist myth is only applicable in the USA is relevant.

During a discussion of U.S. statistics? Not really.

Calling something you don't like a myth because it hurt your feelings is not an argument.

You tend to focus on this when you are losing an argument.

That can't be true because I don't lose arguments with individuals such as yourself.

The words of the study are there for anyone to read.

That is correct, which is why I am right and you are not.

So it was irrelevant.

No, it was a statistical support for my passing claim that marriage is not popular among blacks. Which is statistically true in comparison to other races.

Again, women can better protect themselves by lookingnfor the actual causes and correlates of spousal homicide than by looking at race.

Are you saying women should ignore the actual factors and focus on race instead?

On what basis do you draw this inference?

I am defending the accuracy of statistical generalizations as they correlate to race.

Your claim here would only require a woman to be more diligent in her background interview process when dating a black man to make sure he didn't have one of those problems correlated with spousal homicide. The level of her increased diligence should be about 33% above the average.

I am goung to just ignore these personal attacks you make when you have lost an argument.

This hypothetical conversation is relevant and should be addressed. Especially since it summarized your arguments made thus far, including their level of profundity or lack thereof.

Well, if you do not want to seem as you are defending racist propaganda, then do not cite propaganda and then disagree withnactual studies that prove it wrong.

Please define racism, as I don't know how you are using that term. Also, please define propoganda.

From what I have seen, we've been discussing race statistics, which are neither propaganda nor racist. Unless facts are racist propaganda, a common inference made by the left in point of fact.

Likewise, this is not a valid excuse for using an abusive-ad-hominem fallacy.

Besides, someone who argues that they have the right to kill their kids and wife for violating their rules is not in a position to make,these types of judgements.

Also a fallacy, tu qoque and red-herring.

Even if I believed that all women on earth should be exterminated at birth, it would NOT nullify the validity or invalidity of the claims made. That is a fallacy.

Your reasoning always tends to resort to fallacies and ad-hominems when you have nothing left but hurt fee-fees.

When you get your big-boy pants back on and are ready to discuss how statistical inferences work, let me know.

[Pants-of-dog]

During a discussion of U.S. statistics? Not really.

Calling something you don't like a myth because it hurt your feelings is not an argument.

No ine said it was a discussion about the USA. That is you being US centric and generalising from your own experience.

And it is a myth because it is not based on fact.

That is correct, which is why I am right and you are not.

Yes, the part where it says that race is irrelevant contradicts the claim from the racist propaganda you cited. I even bolded the exact phrase that oroves younwrong.

No, it was a statistical support for my passing claim that marriage is not popular among blacks. Which is statistically true in comparison to other races.

Thank you for explaining why it is irrelevant.

On what basis do you draw this inference?

I am defending the accuracy of statistical generalizations as they correlate to race.

Again, race is not correlated. It is simply a historical coincidence because if the racist history of the USA.

Your claim here would only require a woman to be more diligent in her background interview process when dating a black man to make sure he didn't have one of those problems correlated with spousal homicide. The level of her increased diligence should be about 33% above the average.

And your lcaim would involve women ignoring the actual causes and focusing on the part that is irrelevant according to the actual evidence.

Please define racism, as I don't know how you are using that term. Also, please define propoganda.

I already did. You often ask me questions that I already answered.

From what I have seen, we've been discussing race statistics, which are neither propaganda nor racist. Unless facts are racist propaganda, a common inference made by the left in point of fact.

Likewise, this is not a valid excuse for using an abusive-ad-hominem fallacy.

I already explained why the original “article” you cited was racist propaganda. Please go back and reread it.

[Victoribus Spolia]

No ine said it was a discussion about the USA. That is you being US

Another accusation. The stats in question were for what country Pants?

Where the fuck have you been?

and generalising from your own experience.

Please provide evidence for this claim. Thanks.

BTW, the only person who has made an anecdotal claim about black people on here, was you.

And it is a myth because it is not based on fact.

Actually the facts are quite plain, which is why it isn't a myth.

Yes, the part where it says that race is irrelevant contradicts the claim from the racist propaganda you cited. I even bolded the exact phrase that oroves younwrong.

The exact phrase was consistent with my position as was already explained, a point you refuse to address because you cannot.

Shall we do a cross examination Pants? I'd love to see you squirm out of what I got in store for you.

And we all know how well you do when questioned on the spot.

Thank you for explaining why it is irrelevant.

It was relevant to my point yes.

again, race is not correlated. It is simply a historical coincidence because if the racist history of the USA.

Actually it is, if you are black you a statistically more likely to be unemployed, uneducated, and involved in crime; hence you are also more likely to kill your spouse.

These are facts from the study.

Likewise, please define "racism."

Also, explain how said racism CAUSES black men to be more involved in killing their spouses than any other race.

And your lcaim would involve women ignoring the actual causes and focusing on the part that is irrelevant according to the actual evidence.

Actually, the part you quoted just states the very opposite, the point of doing a background interview is to find out if those things that correlate to spousal homicide are present in the individual; something she would be advised to do irrespective of race, its just 33% more important that she does such an interview with black male potential-partners, which is factually true.

Your feelings being hurt about this is irrelevant.

I already did. You often ask me questions that I already answered.

You have defined neither, please quote or link the post where such definitions have been given. Thanks.

I already explained why the original “article” you cited was racist propaganda. Please go back and reread it.

Irrelevant, as such is a fallacy anyway. The facts are the facts.

[Pants-of-dog]

This is getting absurd.

The evidence, i.e. the study, contradicts the claim made by the “article”.

If you wish tokeep defending the racist propaganda in the face of actual evidence that contradicts it, feel free to defend racism.

[Victoribus Spolia]

The evidence, i.e. the study, contradicts the claim made by the “article”.

This was shown to be patently false. Several times.

If you wish tokeep defending the racist propaganda in the face of actual evidence that contradicts it, feel free to defend racism.

I'm defending proper application of statistical analysis, correct.

Blacks and whites have no real difference in killing their spouses if we DO NOT take into account each racial groups rates of participation in crime, unemployment, substance-abuse, and lack-of-education.

When we do take into account those factors (as they exist in REAL LIFE) then black males are 33% more likely to kill their white partners. This is true, that was the only claim made.

To excuse this FACT because black men have suffered discrimination in their collective history, is not only irrelevant, but it doesn't justify or excuse violence against women, which is a wicked and savage act.

To defend such violence against women on the basis of political-correctness and double-speak is itself abhorrent and shameful.