Why do Black men rape White women?

[Remiel]

Its obvious that Argus and Lictor are arguing for the same ends. Like all WNs, they believe in the complete separation of whites and blacks in all areas across the world.

The tiny problem is, it is impossible.

As absurd as I may think he is being sometimes, I think it is a disservice to Argus to portray him as being in the same camp as Lictor.

[Malaclypse the Younger]

[email protected] writes:

> This is a formal complant about xxxx Argus ([email protected])

> who have spread anti-immigrant and anti-asian posts throughout the

> Internet in newsgroup such as can.community.asian,soc.culture.canada,

> can.general and can.community.asian. Besides spreading his exetreme ideas,

> he verbally offense anyone who oppose to his ideas. In one of his post,

> he even claimed that the freenet will not discontinue his account based

> on his acts and imply that his actions are fully supported by your

> organization.

Les Griswold?

[benny]

Maybe he was raped by a "Black Man"?

Or raked by the moderator!?

[Argus]

In other words, you were wrong.

Hmmm, as I suspected, you literally are incapable of telling right from wrong.

[Argus]

an American, making certain that race baiting stats are available for projection to Canadian populations, as Canada has not progressed past the silly notion of "visible minorities" (as defined by "whites only", of course).

Silly, yes, indeed. Americans are above such things. And yet... oddly, you are obsessed by race, by everything about race, and by every possible nuance of physical description. One wrong word by anyone in public, one wrong phrase, even taken out of context, which can be considered an insult towards another racial or ethnic group and you're finished.

Well, unless you're a Black civil rights activist, of course. Then you can smear Jews with relative impunity.

I recall a cartoon mocking America's weird fixation with such things. It was a father explaining to his son the acceptable words to describe Blacks. It started out as Negro, then that became politically unacceptable. It became colored. Colored people sounded so quaint. What color was that anyway? Colored people became African Americans. Then African American became unacceptable and it Black, and then it became Person of Color. And each time the designation changes, the previous one becomes somehow unacceptable. Poor lad, he frowned at the "People of color" designation, and then said brightly "So... Colored people."

[Argus]

Argus and Lictor are WNs.

And you are a sock puppet for someone here who has decided that he would create a second identity in order to be free to insult people on this subject - and only this subject, for you have not involved yourself in any other - and thus when he gets banned or suspended it won't matter.

Say hello to Benny and Oleg. You three have something in common. The only three members of my ignore file.

Edited August 9, 2009 by Argus

[benny]

Silly, yes, indeed. Americans are above such things. And yet... oddly, you are obsessed by race, by everything about race, and by every possible nuance of physical description. One wrong word by anyone in public, one wrong phrase, even taken out of context, which can be considered an insult towards another racial or ethnic group and you're finished.

Never underestimate the power of words to destroy (self-)respect.

[bush_cheney2004]

.....And each time the designation changes, the previous one becomes somehow unacceptable. Poor lad, he frowned at the "People of color" designation, and then said brightly "So... Colored people."

It's a designation for "white people" to use about others...just like "visible minority" in Canada. You can't imagine describing "those people" without such qualifiers and code words. "Jesus Christ...you didn't tell me she/he was "BLACK" !!!!!

[benny]

It's a designation for "white people" to use about others...just like "visible minority" in Canada. You can't imagine describing "those people" without such qualifiers and code words. "Jesus Christ...you didn't tell me she/he was "BLACK" !!!!!

Chocolate is bitter without a bit of milk.

[bush_cheney2004]

Chocolate is bitter without a bit of milk.

But the "milk" wants to stay "pure" for reasons only it knows.

[benny]

But the "milk" wants to stay "pure" for reasons only it knows.

Milk doesn't want to stay pure since girls are critically wearing black bras.

[Moxie]

I stopped reading this thread when I read Lily's comment, like her I don't care what color my rapist's skin color is up and until I have to ID him in a perp lineup.

I long for the day we can have adult conversatiosn on racial issues without the usual supsects' screaming racist. I long for the day when no one cares what color one's skin is because we all bleed red and our blood is black until it hits oxygen. Is there really anyone who's pure white anymore? I doubt it.

[tango]

Sorry, Tango

You should see that there is value to addressing the types of arguments Listor makes head-on, rather than banning those types of discussion.

Discussing the issue has revealed that those who would malign black people are wallowing around in the miniscule elements of the data, when the major finding is that whites are the perpetrators of the vast majority of the violence.

I have no problem with discussing the topic. I have a problem with the bias in the thread topic that presumes an answer before the discussion: That is hate propaganda, imo.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Is there really anyone who's pure white anymore? I doubt it.

When was this ever true? Why is it important? What drives this "pure race" neurosis?

Edited August 9, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[Michael Hardner]

tango

whites are the perpetrators of the vast majority of the violence.

Of course they would be expected to do so, since they represent the majority of the people.

[tango]

tango

Of course they would be expected to do so, since they represent the majority of the people.

Exactly, and that's what we've learned.

It's a matter of demographic probabilities.

[benny]

It's a matter of demographic probabilities.

Moral and ethical issues cannot be only a matter of demographic probabilities.

[Argus]

Exactly, and that's what we've learned.

It's a matter of demographic probabilities.

In other words, if blacks make up 13% of the population, we would expect that 13% of the men who rape White women would be black, right? Or, actually it should be lower than that as many rapes are date rapes and for the most part, white women date white men. Also, a significant portion of the young black male population is in jail at any given time.

[benny]

In other words, if blacks make up 13% of the population, we would expect that 13% of the men who rape White women would be black, right?

Morality cannot care less about randomness.

[Sir Bandelot]

In other words, if blacks make up 13% of the population, we would expect that 13% of the men who rape White women would be black, right? Or, actually it should be lower than that as many rapes are date rapes and for the most part, white women date white men. Also, a significant portion of the young black male population is in jail at any given time.

I would not expect that, it's too simple a model. Another way to look at it could be, if 90% of the people who committed rape are from the poor or lowest educated parts of society, and blacks comprise 50% of that... you now have a fundamentally different demographic. Theres many ways to analyze the data and draw conclusions, some can be quite misleading.

In other words, there's lies, damn lies and theres statistics. And then there's your posts...

[bush_cheney2004]

I would not expect that, it's too simple a model. Another way to look at it could be, if 90% of the people who committed rape are from the poor or lowest educated parts of society, and blacks comprise 50% of that... you now have a fundamentally different demographic. Theres many ways to analyze the data and draw conclusions, some can be quite misleading.

In other words, there's lies, damn lies and theres statistics. And then there's your posts...

Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Give that man a cookie!

[tango]

I would not expect that, it's too simple a model. Another way to look at it could be, if 90% of the people who committed rape are from the poor or lowest educated parts of society, and blacks comprise 50% of that... you now have a fundamentally different demographic. Theres many ways to analyze the data and draw conclusions, some can be quite misleading.

In other words, there's lies, damn lies and theres statistics. And then there's your posts...

The stats were posted by 'lictor616' (the guardian of the pope or of the devil, depending on your interpretation) to support his claim of an epidemic of black men sexually assaulting white women. However, the stats do not show that at all.

What the numbers show is that the 'epidemic', if there is one, is white men sexually assaulting white women.

The unjustified racist intent of lictor616's op is exposed as a fraud.

[benny]

I would not expect that, it's too simple a model. Another way to look at it could be, if 90% of the people who committed rape are from the poor or lowest educated parts of society, and blacks comprise 50% of that... you now have a fundamentally different demographic. Theres many ways to analyze the data and draw conclusions, some can be quite misleading.

In other words, there's lies, damn lies and theres statistics. And then there's your posts...

Anyway, morality is about breaking statistical correlations for the good of all.

[JB Globe]

In other words, if blacks make up 13% of the population, we would expect that 13% of the men who rape White women would be black, right? Or, actually it should be lower than that as many rapes are date rapes and for the most part, white women date white men. Also, a significant portion of the young black male population is in jail at any given time.

You're still keeping with this?

Give it up, this post is as stupid as it is offensive.

You admitted the stats don't even apply to Canada because of the radically different history and composition of our black communities to those in the US. So WTF are you still going on about here?

As I said before, if you are intent on driving down Idiot Blvd. with posts like this, you could have easily have made a post called: "Why do white men mass murder?" or "Why do white men molest kids?"

But you didn't, because it would break your impeccable track record - Whenever you make posts that deal with race, ethnicity, or religion, they always try to portray non-white non-Christians in the worst possible way. Yet you won't outright admit you are prejudiced against non-whites & non-Christians - you still like to distance yourself from outright racists (as in, people who admit their racism to themselves), because you like to think of yourself as a good person.

However, I think the only difference between you and an admitted White Nationalist is honesty, really. In practice, your line of thinking is identical.

[benny]

Argus mentioned his work experiences with "lazy" and "incompetent" Somalians co-workers. To me, Argus may be alienated to a point of playing his bosses' role without receiving their salaries.