Street gangs

[Hates politicians]

Why is it that when these gangs are caught with illegal guns and when theyre caught shooting people that they dont have their hands chopped off? If we did that then they would be given hooks for hands. It will be pretty difficult to hold a gun, never mind pull the trigger

[Michael Hardner]

I guess because most people don't support that idea?

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I guess because most people don't support that idea?

Agreed.  No way should the taxpayer be on the hook for, uh.. hooks.

[capricorn]

3 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Agreed.  No way should the taxpayer be on the hook for, uh.. hooks.

Well then, make it a claw, not a hook.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, capricorn said:

Well then, make it a claw, not a hook.

Maybe one of those grabbers.

[Centerpiece]

I don't think it takes any imagination to determine the colour of most, if not all of these gang-bangers. This would be a perfect opportunity for a sociologist to profile each and every one of them - family make-up, education, countries of origin, etc. Most people - obviously including me - have pre-conceived notions that most gun crime in the GTA is black-on-black with root causes in the Baby-Mom culture and absentee fathers - mostly stemming from crime-ridden Caribbean countries with a systemic single-parent cultural bias. Call out the hand-wringers who whine about blacks being over-represented in the justice system. Get the facts - do the work - tell the truth - and work to stop the violence.....for the sake of the overwhelming, vast majority of the Black community that just wants to get on with their lives.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Centerpiece said:

1) I don't think it takes any imagination to determine the colour of most, if not all of these gang-bangers. This would be a perfect opportunity for a sociologist to profile each and every one of them - family make-up, education, countries of origin, etc. Most people - obviously including me - have pre-conceived notions that most gun crime in the GTA is black-on-black with root causes in the Baby-Mom culture and absentee fathers - mostly stemming from crime-ridden Caribbean countries with a systemic single-parent cultural bias.

2) Call out the hand-wringers who whine about blacks being over-represented in the justice system. Get the facts - do the work - tell the truth - and work to stop the violence.....for the sake of the overwhelming, vast majority of the Black community that just wants to get on with their lives.

1) Would you therefore trust a professional sociologist to do that ?  What comes out of the discussion once root cause is determined ?  A systemic approach, or a blame/excuse approach ?

2) Since you are willing to give the problem over to professionals for information gathering, will you abide by what they find whether you agree with the politics or not ? 

 

If not, then we are talking about the heart of the 'epistemic crisis' we are living in today, the disagreement over facts and knowledge.  Objective arts and sciences are a good way to establish common ground, as you seem to be willing to investigate but to my mind the end result can't be blame/excuse as it takes a process back into the realm of the amateur/generalist.  And although I'm obviously a fan of the academic/specialist approach I also recognize that without trust and buy-in it's a non-starter.

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, Centerpiece said:

I don't think it takes any imagination to determine the colour of most, if not all of these gang-bangers. This would be a perfect opportunity for a sociologist to profile each and every one of them - family make-up, education, countries of origin, etc. Most people - obviously including me - have pre-conceived notions that most gun crime in the GTA is black-on-black with root causes in the Baby-Mom culture and absentee fathers - mostly stemming from crime-ridden Caribbean countries with a systemic single-parent cultural bias. Call out the hand-wringers who whine about blacks being over-represented in the justice system. Get the facts - do the work - tell the truth - and work to stop the violence.....for the sake of the overwhelming, vast majority of the Black community that just wants to get on with their lives.

I agree that accurate facts would be great.  Given the current notion among (some) people that academics are merely left-wing mouthpieces, I expect that if a conclusion that (for example) Black dysfunctional families were no more prevalent than White dysfunctional families and that the rate of crime was identical between Blacks and Whites, that conclusion would simply be disregarded by those people who preferred their bias over facts.   

[Argus]

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

I agree that accurate facts would be great.  Given the current notion among (some) people that academics are merely left-wing mouthpieces, I expect that if a conclusion that (for example) Black dysfunctional families were no more prevalent than White dysfunctional families and that the rate of crime was identical between Blacks and Whites, that conclusion would simply be disregarded by those people who preferred their bias over facts.   

While we don't keep such data or make such studies the US and UK do, and they both do find that Black crime is much higher than White crime and that single parent families are the norm in the Black community.

And the notion academics are left-wing mouthpieces is mostly due to so many ideologically driven left-wing academics in the universities these days.

[dialamah]

17 minutes ago, Argus said:

And the notion academics are left-wing mouthpieces is mostly due to so many ideologically driven left-wing academics in the universities these days.

See?  You yourself would be part of the cohort that would reject facts you didn't like.

[Centerpiece]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) Would you therefore trust a professional sociologist to do that ?  What comes out of the discussion once root cause is determined ?  A systemic approach, or a blame/excuse approach ?

2) Since you are willing to give the problem over to professionals for information gathering, will you abide by what they find whether you agree with the politics or not ? 

 

If not, then we are talking about the heart of the 'epistemic crisis' we are living in today, the disagreement over facts and knowledge.  Objective arts and sciences are a good way to establish common ground, as you seem to be willing to investigate but to my mind the end result can't be blame/excuse as it takes a process back into the realm of the amateur/generalist.  And although I'm obviously a fan of the academic/specialist approach I also recognize that without trust and buy-in it's a non-starter.

1) I must admit, I don't know if a socialogist is the right skillset or not - I just through it out there. The important thing is to gather the raw facts - just the facts or as you say - information gathering. 

2) I can of course, honestly say I would agree with the facts. Phase 2 is to compare those findings against other segments of society. Can't see where I could disagree with any of that either. 

3) Blindly and quite frankly stupidly - claiming that systemic racism is to blame for the over-representation of Blacks in the justice system just perpetuates the very real problems that exist.

4) Issues with Canada's Black community are not based on US historical injustices or inner-city decay - they are imported from crime ridden Caribbean countries - mostly Jamaican. 

I do not feel good about writing these things - but I am totally frustrated with the absence of facts - if not truth - in dealing what has clearly been in front of us for decades.

[Centerpiece]

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

I agree that accurate facts would be great.  Given the current notion among (some) people that academics are merely left-wing mouthpieces, I expect that if a conclusion that (for example) Black dysfunctional families were no more prevalent than White dysfunctional families and that the rate of crime was identical between Blacks and Whites, that conclusion would simply be disregarded by those people who preferred their bias over facts.   

If there were 100 dysfunctional white families with 10 criminals and 100 dysfunctional black families with 10 criminals - how could anyone ignore that equality? I'd hazard a guess that's not what you'd find whether it be compared to whites, Asian, South Asian, Middle East or whatever. As I said - these 78 criminals would be a great sample to profile - because until you do the work, it's all just anecdotal - and that's a shame.

[taxme]

4 hours ago, Centerpiece said:

I don't think it takes any imagination to determine the colour of most, if not all of these gang-bangers. This would be a perfect opportunity for a sociologist to profile each and every one of them - family make-up, education, countries of origin, etc. Most people - obviously including me - have pre-conceived notions that most gun crime in the GTA is black-on-black with root causes in the Baby-Mom culture and absentee fathers - mostly stemming from crime-ridden Caribbean countries with a systemic single-parent cultural bias. Call out the hand-wringers who whine about blacks being over-represented in the justice system. Get the facts - do the work - tell the truth - and work to stop the violence.....for the sake of the overwhelming, vast majority of the Black community that just wants to get on with their lives.

Right on. But you better watch out for that word "racist" to be thrown at you here. Some members here do not like to have to see another race being reported on, other than white, that are being shown to be bad people. It is just not oh so Canadian to do so, right MH? 

[taxme]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) Would you therefore trust a professional sociologist to do that ?  What comes out of the discussion once root cause is determined ?  A systemic approach, or a blame/excuse approach ?

2) Since you are willing to give the problem over to professionals for information gathering, will you abide by what they find whether you agree with the politics or not ? 

 

If not, then we are talking about the heart of the 'epistemic crisis' we are living in today, the disagreement over facts and knowledge.  Objective arts and sciences are a good way to establish common ground, as you seem to be willing to investigate but to my mind the end result can't be blame/excuse as it takes a process back into the realm of the amateur/generalist.  And although I'm obviously a fan of the academic/specialist approach I also recognize that without trust and buy-in it's a non-starter.

1. Avoid telling the truth is what you believe in, right. Why are you trying to ignore the fact that what Center is saying is so true and acknowledge it rather than fight it? The facts are pretty much there for all to see. 

2. I can be pretty sure that if the findings go against the color of people that Center has mentioned you will probably want to defend them anyway. 

3. ?????????????????. Always out to protect the poor old so-called downtrodden, eh, especially if they are not of the white variety. Then who the hell cares. Just saying.

Your prejudices and biases have been duly noted. Tick. LOL. 

[taxme]

37 minutes ago, Centerpiece said:

1) I must admit, I don't know if a socialogist is the right skillset or not - I just through it out there. The important thing is to gather the raw facts - just the facts or as you say - information gathering. 

2) I can of course, honestly say I would agree with the facts. Phase 2 is to compare those findings against other segments of society. Can't see where I could disagree with any of that either. 

3) Blindly and quite frankly stupidly - claiming that systemic racism is to blame for the over-representation of Blacks in the justice system just perpetuates the very real problems that exist.

4) Issues with Canada's Black community are not based on US historical injustices or inner-city decay - they are imported from crime ridden Caribbean countries - mostly Jamaican. 

I do not feel good about writing these things - but I am totally frustrated with the absence of facts - if not truth - in dealing what has clearly been in front of us for decades.

Some peoples kids just can't seem to ever get the drift.  

[Argus]

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

See?  You yourself would be part of the cohort that would reject facts you didn't like.

No, I would reject facts which strayed from reality.

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, Centerpiece said:

If there were 100 dysfunctional white families with 10 criminals and 100 dysfunctional black families with 10 criminals - how could anyone ignore that equality? I'd hazard a guess that's not what you'd find whether it be compared to whites, Asian, South Asian, Middle East or whatever. As I said - these 78 criminals would be a great sample to profile - because until you do the work, it's all just anecdotal - and that's a shame.

You could be right.  On the other hand, I've posted information regarding a study that was done inside Canadian prisons indicating Whites were more criminally-minded than visible minority offenders, and that visible minorities were less dangerous to individuals than Caucasians.   But this information is simply rejected by the usual suspects.   

Quote

A larger proportion of visible minority than Caucasian offenders are incarcerated for drug-related offences, but smaller proportions are incarcerated for other offences, such as property offences and sex-related offences. 

 

Quote

In summary, visible minority offenders seem to be less “entrenched” in a criminal lifestyle than Caucasian offenders. They tend to have less extensive criminal histories, are incarcerated less often for offences against the person, and are lower in risk and need than Caucasian offenders. They also tend to have higher levels of education, less unemployment, and are less often single. These circumstances may help in rehabilitation. Among visible minority offenders, Black offenders tend to exhibit more problem areas than Asian or “other visible minority” offenders.

 

[dialamah]

20 minutes ago, Argus said:

No, I would reject facts which strayed from reality.

Ok, go for it.  I've posted some facts above, which you previously rejected and now you can reject them again.    

[Centerpiece]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

You could be right.  On the other hand, I've posted information regarding a study that was done inside Canadian prisons indicating Whites were more criminally-minded than visible minority offenders, and that visible minorities were less dangerous to individuals than Caucasians.   But this information is simply rejected by the usual suspects.   

 

On the other "other hand", the information you posted lumped all visible minorities together and compared them to Caucasians - but ended by saying "Among visible minority offenders, Black offenders tend to exhibit more problem areas than Asian or “other visible minority” offenders.". So I think it's fair to say you've supported my argument to some extent - but as you suggested, I think those usual suspects would just ignore that line.

Edited June 23, 2018 by Centerpiece

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, Centerpiece said:

On the other "other hand", the information you posted lumped all visible minorities together and compared them to Caucasians - but ended by saying "Among visible minority offenders, Black offenders tend to exhibit more problem areas than Asian or “other visible minority” offenders.". So I think it's fair to say you've supported my argument to some extent - but I think the usual suspects just ignored that line.

Exactly an example of a way to disregard facts which you don't like.  

If A is Asian, B is Black and C is Caucasion, you could write it like this: B>A and A+B<C; therefore C>A and C>B.

You seem to be saying it looks like this: B>A and A+B<C therefore B>A and B>C, which looks to me like a logical impossibility.

I didn't ignore that line; I expected someone to go exactly where you went with it. 

 

[Argus]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

Exactly an example of a way to disregard facts which you don't like.  

If A is Asian, B is Black and C is Caucasion, you could write it like this: B>A and A+B<C; therefore C>A and C>B.

Or simply a way of putting things into context. It's known that Asians commit few crimes as compared to other populations. At least by US stats. Blacks commit much more, especially violent crimes. And from your own cite we see that blacks are overrepresented by 300%.:

Differences emerge when specific groups are examined. For instance, although they account for about 2% of the population in Canada, Blacks make up 6% of offenders incarcerated in federal correctional facilities and 7% of those serving time in the community. Asians are not over-represented—they account for 8% of the population in Canada, but only 2% of incarcerated offenders and 4% of those serving time in the community

Edited June 24, 2018 by Argus

[Centerpiece]

15 hours ago, dialamah said:

Exactly an example of a way to disregard facts which you don't like.  

If A is Asian, B is Black and C is Caucasion, you could write it like this: B>A and A+B<C; therefore C>A and C>B.

You seem to be saying it looks like this: B>A and A+B<C therefore B>A and B>C, which looks to me like a logical impossibility.

I didn't ignore that line; I expected someone to go exactly where you went with it. 

 

Your equations are mind-boggling so let's stick to the facts. What do we know? Nothing more than what your study actually said.

1) Blacks have more "problem areas" than any other visible minority.

2) Caucasians are more firmly entrenched in crime than visible minorities.

I have no problem recognizing that Caucasians are more "entrenched" than Chinese or South Asian or many of the other minorities. But here's the kicker: Based on the 2016 census. Although 22.3% of Canadians were "visible minorities" Blacks comprised only 3.5%. Surely you can see how lumping them in with all the other visible minorities dilutes their criminality as suggested in point 1).

Are you at least starting to recognize that you might be one of the "usual suspects"?

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada

Edited June 24, 2018 by Centerpiece

[eyeball]

8 hours ago, Argus said:

And the notion academics are left-wing mouthpieces is mostly due to so many ideologically driven left-wing academics in the universities these days.

Is there no such a thing as a right-wing academic? They seem to be outnumbered to the point of invisibility.

Argus ignores me so perhaps someone else could answer.

Edited June 24, 2018 by eyeball

[Argus]

Since we're on the topic of minorities and crime, this was in the paper today.

Half of all youth in custody are natives. Nearly half of all women in custody are natives.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-nearly-half-of-youth-incarcerated-across-canada-are-indigenous/

[dialamah]

46 minutes ago, Argus said:

Since we're on the topic of minorities and crime, this was in the paper today.

Half of all youth in custody are natives. Nearly half of all women in custody are natives.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-nearly-half-of-youth-incarcerated-across-canada-are-indigenous/

Yes, its sad.  I wonder why so many indigenous folks are represented in our jails, on our streets and in our morgues?  Must be they chose it somehow, because certainly all the studies about history, poverty and discrimination resulting in poor outcomes (ie: addiction, jail, death) for this group are wrong, given they were carried out by academics.  And, as everyone knows academics are all left-wing shills with a clear agenda of beating down White people (especially men) while providing excuses and freebies to lazy, entitled, criminally-minded natives.

Edited June 24, 2018 by dialamah