Why do Black men rape White women?

[CANADIEN]

"People like AW, eh?" You don't know me from Adam, and you couldn't be more wrong in your analysis of me, so try to stay on topic instead of making this about me.

I see. You're judgmental, but you consider my attitude to be "rank bigotry." Obviously you don't treat everyone the same or you wouldn't be on and on about this while ignoring everything bush_cheney has been saying regarding crimes and white men.

Sorry, but I'm the one who holds everyone up to the same standards. I was very angry and appalled over the treatment of the Duke lacrosse team, but that doesn't mean I'm going to go out and slander blacks in retaliation.

So keep your moronic insinuations about me to yourself and try concentrating on the actual issue.

You are missing the actual issue. Same standards for all means that Blacks are all potential criminals until proven otherwise.

[Cato]

we owe it to OURSELVES to adopt the same principles we preach to the World. Starting with the notion that individuals are to be treated as such, not on the basis of what other individuals do

How many people do you think would immigrate to Canada if there were not limits? Only estimations, only regions.

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about - but then I doubt you do either.

I'm sure you don't.

You want to introduce the subject of paedophila into a thread about Black on White sexual violence, feel free. As yet you've done nothing but pull a statement out of your ass and wave it around in an effort to halt the discussion.

The law in the USA makes no distinction when it comes to sexual assault. So why do you?

I'm not sure if Whites do molest children at a higher rate than Blacks do. It wouldn't surprise me, actually, since, most child molestation takes place within the family and, unlike most Black men, White men tend to actually hang around with their women after they've gotten them pregnant.

Again, you don't know, but are more than willing to take a leap of faith to further your own agenda.

But the entire reason d'etre of this particular thread is interracial violence and whether it can or should constitute a hate crime, as compared to other "hate crimes. So it would seem that paedophila is somewhat irrelevent. Then again, almost everything you say on most subjects here is irrelevant.

No such thing as "interracial" violence in this context; the elements of a hate crime statute transcend "race", gender, and sexual orientation.

The furtherance of knowledge is never a bad thing. Is there a particular reason why a Republican Zealot is so offended by the topic? I mean, don't most Republicans have wet dreams about sending all the darkies back to Africa?

Thank you for confirming what others have long suspected....about you.

Edited August 3, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

Not more crimes commited by Blacks. Not a higher percertage of Blacks committing crimes. No - a predilection. Most, if not all of them do it.

Yea...that's it....a PREDILECTION to commit crimes....ALL OF 'EM. It's in their black "darkie" genes according to Argus. LOL!

[bush_cheney2004]

.....When Macleans says outright that 97% of the gang violence in Toronto is commited by Jamaicans I can't help wondering why we wouldn't decide that bringing over people from this particular national grouping is not in our interests. When the Citizen says half the youths in jail are Somalians, and when half the people in Ottawa can relate incidences of violence, intimidation, theft, or other abuse by Somalians, I can't help wondering why we continue to accept people from this particular national grouping. What you fail to understand - completely - is that we have absolutely no responsibility - none - zero - to be "fair" to every single national grouping out there, and treat them all the same with regards to who we do and don't let into Canada. They are not Canadians....

That's good...get it all out...blubber away until you feel better about all those "non-Canadian darkies". You want to know why you keep accepting more Somalians? Ask members of your defunct Airborne Regiment about "gang violence".

[CANADIEN]

How many people do you think would immigrate to Canada if there were not limits? Only estimations, only regions.

I am most certainly not suggesting that we set no limits to immigration. That would be a disserve to us and to would be immigrants. Nor would I suggest that we do not set the bar high, or that we do not keep criminals out and kick them out.

The notion that I have a problem with is that we should base decisions on who we admit on where they come from instead of what actual skills they bring and their own PERSONAL attitudes and value sets.

Edited August 3, 2009 by CANADIEN

[Cato]

The notion that I have a problem with is that we should base decisions on who we admit on where they come from instead of what actual skills they bring and their own PERSONAL attitudes and value sets.

Excellent. What I miss is how to accomplish that. How do you imagine to decide, if someone's personal attitudes and value sets are in accord with the expectations, whatever they may be?

Though there is an easy way: just ask them. Like the crook, who convinced that stupid cow at the Immigration Board, that he is a reliable guy, despite his criminal past with multiple violent cases.

God, when shooting the members of those criminal gangs (i.e. the activists at HRC, Immigration Board, etc.), women come first.

[lily]

Excellent. What I miss is how to accomplish that. How do you imagine to decide, if someone's personal attitudes and value sets are in accord with the expectations, whatever they may be?

Though there is an easy way: just ask them. Like the crook, who convinced that stupid cow at the Immigration Board, that he is a reliable guy, despite his criminal past with multiple violent cases.

God, when shooting the members of those criminal gangs (i.e. the activists at HRC, Immigration Board, etc.), women come first.

Why waste time asking?

Have them send in a photo, or apply in person. That' should streamline things.

[CANADIEN]

Excellent. What I miss is how to accomplish that. How do you imagine to decide, if someone's personal attitudes and value sets are in accord with the expectations, whatever they may be?

Though there is an easy way: just ask them. Like the crook, who convinced that stupid cow at the Immigration Board, that he is a reliable guy, despite his criminal past with multiple violent cases.

God, when shooting the members of those criminal gangs (i.e. the activists at HRC, Immigration Board, etc.), women come first.

Making sure we get the imm igrants we need is no simple task, which is why it doesn't called on simplistic solutions based on prejudice.

One thing is to start by putting more resources in making sure INDIVIDUALS who have no place here do not cross our boders.

PS: If you think murder is something to make light of, you're the joke.

Edited August 4, 2009 by CANADIEN

[Cato]

One thing is to start by putting more resources in making sure INDIVIDUALS who have no place here do not cross our boders

Shallow blathering. How should that be accomplished?

The immigration system as it is now is designed to work that way - but it does not.

Canadian bureaucrats are worthless leeches, probably the most incompetent ones in the developed world. Putting more resources in it means making it even more expensive, even more inefficient and an even bigger failure.

Canada does not have any obligation to give every person on earth equal chance to immigrate. There is nothing wrong with making some basic decisions excluding those, who are less likely to adjust to the laws of this country, based simply on generic considerations.

[CANADIEN]

Shallow blathering.

The shallow blathering is the mindless drivel by those who would let prejudice rule our immigration system either because they are prejudiced themselves or because they like simplisitc solutions to problem/

We put resources in the system by making sure we have the best people in place. We request guarantees - real guarantees. We stop family re-unification. We lenghten the time needed to become a Canadian citizens. There are many other things we can do, but that's a start.

And that beats calling public servants leeches and musing about them being murdered.

[Remiel]

People started with the assumption that the statistics are wrong, and have worked busily to find reasons to support that belief.

kimmy, honestly, if we were to imagine for a moment that we had never seen this thread, and someone were to say to you " 37,000 white women were raped by black men and 10 black women by white men in 2005 in the U.S.," would your first instinct not be to say, " Those numbers sound rather odd. They could be true, but they certainly seem improbable, " ? Given that, and with the additional knowledge that the person was trying to convince you of something, would you not think it pertinent to examine the alleged statistics for yourself and consider ways in which that person might be mistaken? Because, if you assume the opposite, that they are telling the truth, might you not miss or gloss over the fine print?

[Guest American Woman]

So let's see, if, according to the US Justice Department, 37,000 White women are reported raped every year by Black men, and yet only less than 10 Black women are reported raped by White men...

Once more I'm going to address the "every year" claim.

I looked up the statistics for all the available years listed on the the page the article linked to. I find it more than interesting that the statistics were chosen for the one year that the white-by-black statistics were so high. Not only that, I find it more than interesting that this was not even mentioned and that the worst case scenario was then turned into "every year" by Argus, whose post some people continue to defend.

I also find it interesting that people who were so willing to take this survey as some kind of gospel truth were so dismissive of the link that I posted when the source was given as "reliable research." I wonder if those same people even attempted to find any research that would confirm the numbers or if they simply dismissed it in their fixation on this one year of this one survey that doesn't even distinguish rape from "threats of sexual assault," when "sexual assault" can mean just about anything.

But here's a look through the years (interestingly, most have 0% for black by white, so I'm mostly posting figures where there are figures other than 0):

1996

white by black 8.8

black by white 13.5

1997

white by black 8

1998

white by black 9.9

1999

white by black 7.3

2000

white by black 7

black by white 7

2001

white by black 17.1

black by white 13.4

2002

white by black 13.1

2003

white by black 15.5

2004

white by black 8.3

Yet here's the year to base all of our conclusions on. Ignoring the fact that it's a survey, not scientific research or a scientific study or actual crime rate statistics. Ignoring all the other points that have been made.

2005

white by black 33.6

Real "honest" discussion" some are carrying on here.

[scorpio]

Holy crap. You went from bad to worse.

I didn't think that was possible.

Well, when you consider the mods have left the building racists can abound.

[CANADIEN]

Once more I'm going to address the "every year" claim.

I looked up the statistics for all the available years listed on the the page the article linked to. I find it more than interesting that the statistics were chosen for the one year that the white-by-black statistics were so high. Not only that, I find it more than interesting that this was not even mentioned and that the worst case scenario was then turned into "every year" by Argus, whose post some people continue to defend.

I also find it interesting that people who were so willing to take this survey as some kind of gospel truth were so dismissive of the link that I posted when the source was given as "reliable research." I wonder if those same people even attempted to find any research that would confirm the numbers or if they simply dismissed it in their fixation on this one year of this one survey that doesn't even distinguish rape from "threats of sexual assault," when "sexual assault" can mean just about anything.

But here's a look through the years (interestingly, most have 0% for black by white, so I'm mostly posting figures where there are figures other than 0):

1996

white by black 8.8

black by white 13.5

1997

white by black 8

1998

white by black 9.9

1999

white by black 7.3

2000

white by black 7

black by white 7

2001

white by black 17.1

black by white 13.4

2002

white by black 13.1

2003

white by black 15.5

2004

white by black 8.3

Yet here's the year to base all of our conclusions on. Ignoring the fact that it's a survey, not scientific research or a scientific study or actual crime rate statistics. Ignoring all the other points that have been made.

2005

white by black 33.6

Real "honest" discussion" some are carrying on here.

The numbers you quoted from the University of Oregoon are meaningless without their sources and methodology.

that being said, one does not need to be a statistician to suspect that there is a methodology problem with the Dept. of Justice number.

[GostHacked]

really? have you seen the offspring of Heidi Klum and that grotesque pock-faced baboon named "Seal"?

it looks like she's babysitting somebody else's kid...

Hey I'd be happy to be a succesful/wealthy pop/soul pock faced baboon that is having the intimate fun with a supermodel like Klum

and I,ve seen many mix raced kids, its very often difficult to link them up with their parents (especially the white ones)...

Not hard at all, you look at facial features instead of skin tone.

[Guest American Woman]

The numbers you quoted from the University of Oregoon are meaningless without their sources and methodology.

The numbers from the University of Oregon site aren't meaningless in that they show there are other numbers out there; and again, they aren't "from the University of Oregon." I just chose that link. Other universities post the same type of information debunking the 'blacks raping whites' statistics used in this thread. A quick search shows this for anyone who is actually interested. Here's one example from the University of Florida. Here's another from Milliken University.

I have to add, too, I would find it odd if universities trying to educate their students about rape in the desire to prevent rapes would use information that wasn't seen as reliable. So there is some merit to the numbers I quoted.

Rather than make another post, I'll edit this post to add this from the New York State Police site "The Myths - The Truth":

[myth]"Most offenders are men who differ from the

victim in race or ethnicity."

[truth]Over 90% of sexual assaults occur between

people of the same racial or ethnic background

Edited August 4, 2009 by American Woman

[JB Globe]

Whether in Canada, the United States or the UK, a predilection towards violent crime by the Black community has been fairly well noted among everyone other than the politically correct.

Which, of course, seems to be tied to a predilection towards poverty, and towards being the biggest targets of discrimination by the ethnic majority. I wonder if they are related.

I'm looking toward your next post: "Why do White Men mass-murder and molest children?"

Because, after-all, you're not being selective in your subjects now, are you?

Edited August 4, 2009 by JB Globe

[bush_cheney2004]

Hey I'd be happy to be a succesful/wealthy pop/soul pock faced baboon that is having the intimate fun with a supermodel like Klum

You got that right...Brutha! Where do we sign up?

Not hard at all, you look at facial features instead of skin tone.

Yep, just like any other kid. Not so hard at all, unless.......

[CANADIEN]

The numbers from the University of Oregon site aren't meaningless in that they show there are other numbers out there; and again, they aren't "from the University of Oregon." I just chose that link. Other universities post the same type of information debunking the 'blacks raping whites' statistics used in this thread. A quick search shows this for anyone who is actually interested. Here's one example from the University of Florida. Here's another from Milliken University.

I have to add, too, I would find it odd if universities trying to educate their students about rape in the desire to prevent rapes would use information that wasn't seen as reliable. So there is some merit to the numbers I quoted.

Rather than make another post, I'll edit this post to add this from the New York State Police site "The Myths - The Truth":

[myth]"Most offenders are men who differ from the

victim in race or ethnicity."

[truth]Over 90% of sexual assaults occur between

people of the same racial or ethnic background

If numbers backed by a wobbly methodology are not reliable (and they are not), neither are numbers presented without any indication of how they were arrived at.

Edited August 4, 2009 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

Hey I'd be happy to be a succesful/wealthy pop/soul pock faced baboon that is having the intimate fun with a supermodel like Klum

Too bad for you, then. She clearly chose a human being, after all

[Guest American Woman]

If numbers backed by a wobbly methodology are not reliable (and they are not), neither are numbers presented without any indication of how they were arrived at.

Sometimes one has to consider whether or not they trust the source; find the source reliable. But if you find them unreliable, so be it. You have a right to your opinion. That doesn't mean they don't have any merit; it just means they have no merit to you.

But if you look at most of the white-by-black percentages that I posted here, even the survey by the Dept. of Justice backs up the numbers I've posted.

Edited August 4, 2009 by American Woman

[M.Dancer]

the difference is that the two races won't churn out "jerks" at the same rate...

Look at ANY MAJORITY BLACK COUNTRY... any one of them... and look at the violence, the overall lack of respect given to women, the rape rates etc...

Any?

Like Zambia?

Rapes per capita

# 49 Zambia: 0.0266383 per 1,000 people

There are plenty of BLACK MAJORITY COUNTRIES....that have less crime than many western nations.

[CANADIEN]

Sometimes one has to consider whether or not they trust the source; find the source reliable. But if you find them unreliable, so be it. You have a right to your opinion. That doesn't mean they don't have any merit; it just means they have no merit to you.

But if you look at most of the white-by-black percentages that I posted here, even the survey by the Dept. of Justice backs up the numbers I've posted.

And I don't find those numbers reliable either.

[Cato]

We put resources in the system by making sure we have the best people in place. We request guarantees - real guarantees. We stop family re-unification. We lenghten the time needed to become a Canadian citizens.

An excellent demonstration of the core of many problems in Canada: blathering useless slogans without understanding their meaning. I am sick and tired of hearing "making sure we have the best people in place".