Alamo style women-only 'Wonder Woman' screenings to go national?

[Magical Realist]

Your comprehension may be too lacking. Contributing factors can only, collectively, contribute up to a 100% likelihood. Maybe you're not even familiar with the cause/contribution distinction.
The outcome does not obtain if a causal factor is removed, while the outcome can obtain if a contributing factor is removed. Contributions only increase likelihood. They do not cause outcomes.

But that's not what you said. Here's what you said:

"If you assert that racism is a cause for their crime statistics, you are also saying that correlations like single-parents contribute less to those statistics for that race.."

Quote where I said that single parents contribute less or admit you're lying.

I just said I was agreeing with you that "add[ing] racism to the contributing factors for blacks doesn't mean it somehow contributes more than single-parents". But apparently you're so interested in this strawman that you missed that entirely

Liar. You are arguing against me saying the opposite of what you said, which I never said. You are only making yourself look more foolish here by defending your stawman.

I started by posting only one video, and you dismissed any black opinion that didn't seem to fit your stereotype. So I gave you more evidence, which you continue to dismiss.

You posted more black videos which didn't prove shit. Why did you do that if you weren't trying to prove your point by showing black people support it?

Black People More Likely to Be Stopped by Cops, Study Finds

Right. We call that racial profiling. Get a clue.

Show me where I said ANYTHING about intelligence. O_o

So why are blacks underrepresented in college?

So businesses discriminating against worker's comp abusers is the scammer's fault?

How does a black sounding name connect to a worker's comp claim? What study do you have to support that?

You're naive if you don't use any approximations to judge strangers. Go to Harlem and see how well that works out for you.

And you're a racist if you use race to judge strangers by. It's that simple.

Doesn't matter. That fact that it is accepted promotes the behavior among blacks.
https://www.theodysseyonline.com/proud-a...lack-woman

Yes it does. Especially if you are using it to justify treating all black men as "angry".

How often do they report routine fender-benders? Reporting the same thing all the time losses viewers and ad revenue. The media is not a public service, it's for-profit.

You expose your own disgusting racism by equating black women missing to fender benders. You're pathetic.

One story is anecdote. Look the word up.

Every fact is an anecdote. Every fact is a someone saying such is so.

[Syne]

Your comprehension may be too lacking. Contributing factors can only, collectively, contribute up to a 100% likelihood. Maybe you're not even familiar with the cause/contribution distinction.
The outcome does not obtain if a causal factor is removed, while the outcome can obtain if a contributing factor is removed. Contributions only increase likelihood. They do not cause outcomes.

But that's not what you said. Here's what you said:

"If you assert that racism is a cause for their crime statistics, you are also saying that correlations like single-parents contribute less to those statistics for that race.."

Quote where I said that single parents contribute less or admit you're lying.

You obviously have trouble parsing simple English. Can you really not understand that I was simply saying that if you add a contributing factor, e.g. racism, other contributing factors, e.g. "correlations like single-parents", must thus contribute less than they would without the added factor? O_o At no point did I ever compare one contribution to another, and that is a strawman of your own making.

If you persist in thinking I'm lying, I have no choice but to assume you just that dim-witted.

I just said I was agreeing with you that "add[ing] racism to the contributing factors for blacks doesn't mean it somehow contributes more than single-parents". But apparently you're so interested in this strawman that you missed that entirely

Liar. You are arguing against me saying the opposite of what you said, which I never said. You are only making yourself look more foolish here by defending your stawman.

Dim-witted it is then.
You keep quoting me NOT saying single-parents contributes less than racism, all the while demanding I've attributed what I have not said to you.

I started by posting only one video, and you dismissed any black opinion that didn't seem to fit your stereotype. So I gave you more evidence, which you continue to dismiss.

You posted more black videos which didn't prove shit. Why did you do that if you weren't trying to prove your point by showing black people support it?

See? Still dismissing black opinions.

Black People More Likely to Be Stopped by Cops, Study Finds

Right. We call that racial profiling. Get a clue.

What, too intellectually dishonest to quote the article that demonstrates that blacks speed more, hence the getting stopped more?

Show me where I said ANYTHING about intelligence. O_o

So why are blacks underrepresented in college?

Black and Latino students who have above-average SAT scores go to college at the same rate — 90 percent — as whites.
- http://hechingerreport.org/black-student...data-show/

So businesses discriminating against worker's comp abusers is the scammer's fault?

How does a black sounding name connect to a worker's comp claim? What study do you have to support that?

What if the large majority of costly scammers were Latino? Or Asian?

You're naive if you don't use any approximations to judge strangers. Go to Harlem and see how well that works out for you.

And you're a racist if you use race to judge strangers by. It's that simple.

Let me know when you get back from Harlem. Test your ideals against the real world before calling people names for heeding statistical evidence.

Doesn't matter. That fact that it is accepted promotes the behavior among blacks.
https://www.theodysseyonline.com/proud-a...lack-woman

Yes it does. Especially if you are using it to justify treating all black men as "angry".

Who assumes all black men are angry?

How often do they report routine fender-benders? Reporting the same thing all the time losses viewers and ad revenue. The media is not a public service, it's for-profit.

You expose your own disgusting racism by equating black women missing to fender benders. You're pathetic.

I'm equating two ubiquitous occurrences you simpleton. Only your subconscious racism would lead you to equate the two in terms of severity.

One story is anecdote. Look the word up.

Every fact is an anecdote. Every fact is a someone saying such is so.

Look up "anecdote".

[Magical Realist]

You obviously have trouble parsing simple English. Rolleyes Can you really not understand that I was simply saying that if you add a contributing factor, e.g. racism, other contributing factors, e.g. "correlations like single-parents", must thus contribute less than they would without the added factor? O_o At no point did I ever compare one contribution to another, and that is a strawman of your own making.

If you persist in thinking I'm lying, I have no choice but to assume you just that dim-witted. Rolleyes

I'm not going to quote your two statements claiming I said single parent raising contributes less then racism again. You said it and you have failed to show where I claimed it. You're a pathetic liar.

You keep quoting me NOT saying single-parents contributes less than racism, all the while demanding I've attributed what I have not said to you.

LOL I quoted you twice claiming that is what I said. And you are lying. I never said such a thing. Why is it so hard for you to admit you fucked up?

See? Still dismissing black opinions.

I dismissed what they said because it was wrong, not because they were black. Can you tell the difference?

What, too intellectually dishonest to quote the article that demonstrates that blacks speed more, hence the getting stopped more?

You're the one quoting articles of blacks being targeted more by cops as evidence of them committing more crimes. Take credit for what you post.

Black and Latino students who have above-average SAT scores go to college at the same rate — 90 percent — as whites.
- http://hechingerreport.org/black-student...data-show/

No they don't. They are underrepresented. And that's because of racism.

http://hechingerreport.org/black-student...data-show/

“Higher education is making it worse, not better, for many students,” said Anthony Carnevale, professor and director of the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce. “College now takes the disadvantages that begin at birth, and then magnifies them.”

Carnevale and other researchers say that the higher education system now works against poorer students, including many who are black and Latino, by tracking them towards colleges with fewer resources and lower overall quality, where it is often more difficult to finish degrees."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/17...81136.html

What if the large majority of costly scammers were Latino? Or Asian?not

Doesn't justify not hiring applicants because of black-soundiing names.

Let me know when you get back from Harlem. Test your ideals against the real world before calling people names for heeding statistical evidence.

And the same would be true if I was in any other poor district. It has nothing to do with their race.

Who assumes all black men are angry?

Read the article again.

I'm equating two ubiquitous occurrences you simpleton. Only your subconscious racism would lead you to equate the two in terms of severity.

You just proved you are a racist by comparing missing black females to fender benders. You were the one equating the severity as the reason it isn't reported as much. You're scum..

[Syne]

You obviously have trouble parsing simple English.  Rolleyes Can you really not understand that I was simply saying that if you add a contributing factor, e.g. racism, other contributing factors, e.g. "correlations like single-parents", must thus contribute less than they would without the added factor? O_o At no point did I ever compare one contribution to another, and that is a strawman of your own making.

If you persist in thinking I'm lying, I have no choice but to assume you just that dim-witted.  Rolleyes

I'm not going to quote your two statements claiming I said single parent raising contributes less then racism again. You said it and you have failed to show where I claimed it. You're a pathetic liar.

Nope. You're just a liar...apparently so lacking on self-awareness to realize how obviously you are projecting.
Or you're just a troll, who after rereading those quotes knows that repeating them would simply prove my point.

You keep quoting me NOT saying single-parents contributes less than racism, all the while demanding I've attributed what I have not said to you.

LOL I quoted you twice claiming that is what I said. And you are lying. I never said such a thing. Why is it so hard for you to admit you fucked up?

No, you didn't. You're just so hung up on this sad little straw man that you misunderstood simple English and are now refusing to accept that I've already clearly said you asserted no such thing. See, even when I agree with you, you can't manage to quit arguing and continuing your straw man.

See? Still dismissing black opinions.

I dismissed what they said because it was wrong, not because they were black. Can you tell the difference?

Bare assertions without supporting arguments give no one any substantial reason for your dismissal.
So we can only assume that you think they're wrong because they do not espouse the opinions you think blacks who know their place should.

What, too intellectually dishonest to quote the article that demonstrates that blacks speed more, hence the getting stopped more?

You're the one quoting articles of blacks being targeted more by cops as evidence of them committing more crimes. Take credit for what you post.

No, again you ignore the article showing they're stopped more because they speed more. Speeding is a crime, and it does contribute to more frequent interactions with police. But apparently, you can't think beyond leftist talking points. Even when it's clearly spelled out for you.

Black and Latino students who have above-average SAT scores go to college at the same rate — 90 percent — as whites.
- http://hechingerreport.org/black-student...data-show/

No they don't. They are underrepresented. And that's because of racism.

http://hechingerreport.org/black-student...data-show/

“Higher education is making it worse, not better, for many students,” said Anthony Carnevale, professor and director of the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce. “College now takes the disadvantages that begin at birth, and then magnifies them.”

Carnevale and other researchers say that the higher education system now works against poorer students, including many who are black and Latino, by tracking them towards colleges with fewer resources and lower overall quality, where it is often more difficult to finish degrees."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/17...81136.html

Silly naive leftist. That's not racism, that's simple market pressure.

A whole infrastructure has mimicked and reinforced this bias, the researchers argue, with rankings such as U.S. News & World Report elevating the values of the high-prestige institutions (selectivity in admissions, research over teaching in faculty work, high institutional spending) and influencing the behavior of many students, many institutions, and some governments and other funders.

And by favoring the traits that gain colleges and universities currency in the rankings and all that follows, the researchers posit, colleges and universities adopt trappings and practices (getting more selective, etc.) that strengthen their signaling potential at the expense of those that make them more likely to focus on transforming students through quality education.

“Given that the prestige structure in higher education has bifurcated the signaling and transformation missions, we consider the possibility that higher-status institutions (via the rankings) may fulfill the signaling mission, but institutions that are lower in status may better fulfill the transformation mission.”
- https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015...ity-others

What if the large majority of costly scammers were Latino? Or Asian?not

Doesn't justify not hiring applicants because of black-soundiing names.

Sure, buddy. You tell me that after you've run a successful business and dealt with a significant pattern of problematic employees.

Let me know when you get back from Harlem. Test your ideals against the real world before calling people names for heeding statistical evidence.

And the same would be true if I was in any other poor district. It has nothing to do with their race.

Really? Bare assertions that you, as a white guy, would fair equally well in poor black and white communities? O_o

Who assumes all black men are angry?

Read the article again.

No, police assume blacks are more dangerous...because statistically they are.
Has nothing to do with anger.

I'm equating two ubiquitous occurrences you simpleton. Only your subconscious racism would lead you to equate the two in terms of severity.

You just proved you are a racist by comparing missing black females to fender benders. You were the one equating the severity as the reason it isn't reported as much. You're scum..

Apparently you can add "ubiquitous" to the list of common English words you don't understand.

[Magical Realist]

Bare assertions without supporting arguments give no one any substantial reason for your dismissal.
So we can only assume that you think they're wrong because they do not espouse the opinions you think blacks who know their place should.

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You can assume I think they're wrong because they are in fact wrong and not for any other reason.

No, again you ignore the article showing they're stopped more because they speed more. Speeding is a crime, and it does contribute to more frequent interactions with police. But apparently, you can't think beyond leftist talking points. Even when it's clearly spelled out for you.

Speeding isn't a crime the last time I checked. Should we start going into jay walking infractions and late returned library books for blacks next? What's your problem with black people?

If you actually read the article you quoted it said that whole study on blacks in New Jersey speeding more is in question. Read the article!

"Mark Posner, a Justice Department lawyer who asked that the findings be withheld, said he was concerned that the results had been skewed by factors such as weather, camera placement and glare on windshields.
"Based on the questions we have identified, it may well be that the results reported in the report are wrong or unreliable," Mr. Posner said in a letter to New Jersey officials."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2002...229-2114r/

Sure, buddy. You tell me that after you've run a successful business and dealt with a significant pattern of problematic employees.

So black people are more "problematic" for their employers? What stats do you have for that? Ofcourse "problematic" is an endlessly tweekable adjective that can mean just about anything. Especially when the employer is a racist prick.

Really? Bare assertions that you, as a white guy, would fair equally well in poor black and white communities?

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

No, police assume blacks are more dangerous...because statistically they are. Rolleyes
Has nothing to do with anger.

Studies showing black people are more "dangerous" than other races? How do you define "dangerous"? Should black people be fined for being more "dangerous" than white people?

Apparently you can add "ubiquitous" to the list of common English words you don't understand

Incidents of black women going missing aren't anywhere near as ubiquitous as fender benders. Hence your racist dismissal of it in terms importance.

[Syne]

Bare assertions without supporting arguments give no one any substantial reason for your dismissal.
So we can only assume that you think they're wrong because they do not espouse the opinions you think blacks who know their place should.

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You can assume I think they're wrong because they are in fact wrong and not for any other reason.

Yet you've arduously avoided any of the actual evidence for their opinions...meaning this excuse is just a cop-out for your subconscious racism.
The most obvious evidence is their personal experience living in those communities...where they face regular threat of being victimized by the same blacks who do support BLM...to the effect of things like de-policing their crime-ridden neighborhoods.

Your apparent dearth of concern for innocent children living in fear of random stray bullets just illustrates your racist callousness.

No, again you ignore the article showing they're stopped more because they speed more. Speeding is a crime, and it does contribute to more frequent interactions with police. But apparently, you can't think beyond leftist talking points. Even when it's clearly spelled out for you.

Speeding isn't a crime the last time I checked.

LOL!!!!!    

In most states, a speeding violation is a criminal offense, or, at the very least, a "quasi-criminal offense," that is, an act that can be punished by the courts as though it is a crime.

In either event, some standards that apply to purely criminal matters usually apply to prosecutions for speeding.
- http://criminal.lawyers.com/traffic-viol...ation.html

You speed enough and you will lose your license. And if you drive without a license you could end up in jail.

In ordinary language, a crime is an unlawful act punishable by a state or other authority. The term "crime" does not, in modern criminal law, have any simple and universally accepted definition, though statutory definitions have been provided for certain purposes. The most popular view is that crime is a category created by law; in other words, something is a crime if declared as such by the relevant and applicable law. One proposed definition is that a crime or offence (or criminal offence) is an act harmful not only to some individual but also to a community, society or the state ("a public wrong"). Such acts are forbidden and punishable by law.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime

Speeding is forbidden and punishable by law.
Do you even drive? O_o

Should we start going into jay walking infractions and late returned library books for blacks next? What's your problem with black people?

What's your problem with accepting simple facts? O_o
Oh right, they don't allow you to assuage your white guilt...because you know you're racist.

If you actually read the article you quoted it said that whole study on blacks in New Jersey speeding more is in question. Read the article!

"Mark Posner, a Justice Department lawyer who asked that the findings be withheld, said he was concerned that the results had been skewed by factors such as weather, camera placement and glare on windshields.
"Based on the questions we have identified, it may well be that the results reported in the report are wrong or unreliable," Mr. Posner said in a letter to New Jersey officials."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2002...229-2114r/

In the southern segment of the turnpike, where the speed limit is 65 m.p.h., 2.7 percent of black drivers were speeders, compared with 1.4 percent of white drivers. Among drivers going faster than 90 m.p.h., the disparity was even greater.

By contrast, blacks were no more likely to speed than whites when the limit was 55 m.p.h. In those geographical segments of the turnpike, 13.1 percent of black drivers were speeders, compared with 13.5 percent of white drivers.

Those results startled officials in the state attorney general's office, who had assumed that the radar study would bolster their case that profiling was widespread. Instead, the study concluded that blacks make up 16 percent of the drivers on the turnpike and 25 percent of the speeders in the 65 m.p.h. zones, where complaints of profiling have been most common.
- http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/21/nyregi...ersey.html

Yeah, the DOJ was looking for racial profiling, so who's surprised their lawyers would want to suppress evidence that contradicts their stated goal?

Sure, buddy. You tell me that after you've run a successful business and dealt with a significant pattern of problematic employees.

So black people are more "problematic" for their employers? What stats do you have for that? Ofcourse "problematic" is an endlessly tweekable adjective that can mean just about anything. Especially when the employer is a racist prick.

New research on hiring bias found resumes bearing names traditionally held by blacks and Hispanics are just as likely to lead to callbacks and job interviews as those bearing white-sounding names.

The findings, announced last week by the University of Missouri, diverge from the results of a famous study from more than a decade ago that found Lakishas and Jamals were far less likely to get job interviews than Emilys and Gregs.
- http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/c...story.html


Another discouraging finding was that all minority groups were more likely to quit a workplace in which a greater proportion of employees were white, suggesting that diversity is difficult to sustain.
- http://www.multiculturaladvantage.com/re...rnover.asp

Really? Bare assertions that you, as a white guy, would fair equally well in poor black and white communities?

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Plenty of evidence of more violent crime committed by blacks against whites than vice versa. Alas, if you were only intellectually honest enough to bother looking.

The statistics show that the 500 killings of white people attributed to blacks last year were the most since black perpetrators were determined to be responsible for the homicides of 504 white people nationwide in 2008. Last year's total was up 12 percent from the 446 recorded in 2014 and 22 percent from the 409 seen in 2013, a year that saw the lowest total this century and one that capped seven years of general declines in black-on-white homicides. Prior to that, 2006 saw the most black-on-white killings since 2001, with 573.

The 229 black lives taken by white killers last year, however, marked an even larger leap from 2014, jumping more than 22 percent from the 187 black victims killed by whites that year, which was the second-lowest total since 2001. The tally was last exceeded in 2008, when 230 blacks were slain by whites. The highest total in the last 15 years came in 2007, when 245 black people were killed by whites.
- https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/201...he-numbers

No, police assume blacks are more dangerous...because statistically they are.  Rolleyes
Has nothing to do with anger.

Studies showing black people are more "dangerous" than other races? How do you define "dangerous"? Should black people be fined for being more "dangerous" than white people?

Higher rate of violent crime = more dangerous
Duh.
Who said ANYTHING about fining anyone? O_o

Apparently you can add "ubiquitous" to the list of common English words you don't understand

Incidents of black women going missing aren't anywhere near as ubiquitous as fender benders. Hence your racist dismissal of it in terms importance.

Nope, it's only in your own assumption are that of equal importance...which is telling.

I never dismissed the vast difference in importance, other that your lazy straw man that I ever made any such comparison.

[Magical Realist]

Yet you've arduously avoided any of the actual evidence for their opinions...meaning this excuse is just a cop-out for your subconscious racism.
The most obvious evidence is their personal experience living in those communities...where they face regular threat of being victimized by the same blacks who do support BLM...to the effect of things like de-policing their crime-ridden neighborhoods.

So instead of cherry picking anecdotes by black people against the the existence of white privelege, which doesn't mean shit, why don't you provide evidence of white privelege not existing. Oh that's right. You ain't got any.

In most states, a speeding violation is a criminal offense, or, at the very least, a "quasi-criminal offense," that is, an act that can be punished by the courts as though it is a crime.

In either event, some standards that apply to purely criminal matters usually apply to prosecutions for speeding.
- http://criminal.lawyers.com/traffic-viol...ation.html

"Most speeding and moving violations are not considered criminal offenses. Rather, they are only infractions. A speeding or moving violation will carry a fine, affect your ability to get a driver's license, or raise your car insurance rates, but will likely not result in jail time or other criminal punishments. The laws for speeding and moving violations vary widely by states, counties, and cities, making it important to be informed of local laws."===http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/ar...tions.html

What's your problem with accepting simple facts? O_o
Oh right, they don't allow you to assuage your white guilt...because you know you're racist.

You're the one digging up dirt on black people. Seriously? They speed more? And you call me a racist? Why do you hate black people so much? Are you afraid of them?

Yeah, the DOJ was looking for racial profiling, so who's surprised their lawyers would want to suppress evidence that contradicts their stated goal?

From your own article:

"Authors of the study offered two theories to explain why they found more speeding by blacks. Demographic research has shown that the black population is younger than the white population, and younger drivers are more likely to speed. The researchers also wrote that their survey of drivers two years ago found that black drivers were more likely to be from out of state and driving long distances than whites, and those factors might make them more prone to speed.

Whatever the reasons for the speeding rates found in the study, civil rights advocates and lawyers said they cannot obscure the state's acknowledgment that racial profiling was an accepted tactic in the department for years.

''Even if it turns out that there was evidence that blacks drive differently from whites, it doesn't account for the fact that blacks are four or five times more likely to be searched,'' said William H. Buckman, a lawyer who won the first New Jersey case in which a judge acknowledged the existence of racial profiling. ''It also doesn't account for the fact that state police gave a handout giving troopers a whole list of traffic violations to use as a pretext for racial profiling. There is so much out there that no one can credibly deny that racial profiling is a reality.''

New research on hiring bias found resumes bearing names traditionally held by blacks and Hispanics are just as likely to lead to callbacks and job interviews as those bearing white-sounding names.

The findings, announced last week by the University of Missouri, diverge from the results of a famous study from more than a decade ago that found Lakishas and Jamals were far less likely to get job interviews than Emilys and Gregs.
- http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/c...story.html

You don't even read the articles you post do you?

"But study co-author Cory Koedel, an associate professor of economics and public policy at the University of Missouri, cautions that it would "be crazy" to interpret the results to suggest hiring discrimination is a problem of the past.

"People should not overreact to this study, but I think it is a data point to be considered when thinking about discrimination in the labor market today," Koedel said."

Plenty of evidence of more violent crime committed by blacks against whites than vice versa. Alas, if you were only intellectually honest enough to bother looking.

Doesn't rule out poverty of the district where crimes occur. All impoverished neighborhoods have a higher crime rate. That's just common sense. And a higher percentage of blacks live near or below the poverty line.

Higher rate of violent crime = more dangerous
Duh. Rolleyes
Who said ANYTHING about fining anyone? O_o

You're more likely to experience a violent crime from a white person than from a black person. That's because there are way more whites than blacks. So blacks are not more dangerous to you. Whites are because there are way more white violent crime perpetrators than black ones.

Nope, it's only in your own assumption are that of equal importance...which is telling.

I never dismissed the vast difference in importance, other that your lazy straw man that I ever made any such comparison.

You're the idiot that compared the two. Own your own racism you hateful scumbag.

[Syne]

Yet you've arduously avoided any of the actual evidence for their opinions...meaning this excuse is just a cop-out for your subconscious racism.
The most obvious evidence is their personal experience living in those communities...where they face regular threat of being victimized by the same blacks who do support BLM...to the effect of things like de-policing their crime-ridden neighborhoods.

So instead of cherry picking anecdotes by black people against the the existence of white privelege, which doesn't mean shit, why don't you provide evidence of white privelege not existing. Oh that's right. You ain't got any.

Thanks for continuing to prove how little you understand of science and methods of evidence. You cannot prove or evidence something "not existing". This is the usual troll/crank refrain of "prove me wrong", which is a transparent attempt to shift the burned of proof.

Not to mention continuing to assert that black opinion "doesn't mean shit". Racist scum!

In most states, a speeding violation is a criminal offense, or, at the very least, a "quasi-criminal offense," that is, an act that can be punished by the courts as though it is a crime.

In either event, some standards that apply to purely criminal matters usually apply to prosecutions for speeding.
- http://criminal.lawyers.com/traffic-viol...ation.html

"Most speeding and moving violations are not considered criminal offenses. Rather, they are only infractions. A speeding or moving violation will carry a fine, affect your ability to get a driver's license, or raise your car insurance rates, but will likely not result in jail time or other criminal punishments. The laws for speeding and moving violations vary widely by states, counties, and cities, making it important to be informed of local laws."===http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/ar...tions.html

Obviously you realize how stupid you sounded and are desperately attempting to justify "Speeding isn't a crime".
Show me where I said speeding was a "criminal offense" and maybe we'll take this more seriously than the sad excuse for stupid it is.

What's your problem with accepting simple facts? O_o
Oh right, they don't allow you to assuage your white guilt...because you know you're racist.

You're the one digging up dirt on black people. Seriously? They speed more? And you call me a racist? Why do you hate black people so much? Are you afraid of them?

See, you call simple facts "digging up dirt", because you know you're a racist scum who desperately needs to assuage your guilt.
Try refuting that study instead of projecting your own racism on others.

Yeah, the DOJ was looking for racial profiling, so who's surprised their lawyers would want to suppress evidence that contradicts their stated goal?

From your own article:

"Authors of the study offered two theories to explain why they found more speeding by blacks. Demographic research has shown that the black population is younger than the white population, and younger drivers are more likely to speed. The researchers also wrote that their survey of drivers two years ago found that black drivers were more likely to be from out of state and driving long distances than whites, and those factors might make them more prone to speed.

Whatever the reasons for the speeding rates found in the study, civil rights advocates and lawyers said they cannot obscure the state's acknowledgment that racial profiling was an accepted tactic in the department for years.

''Even if it turns out that there was evidence that blacks drive differently from whites, it doesn't account for the fact that blacks are four or five times more likely to be searched,'' said William H. Buckman, a lawyer who won the first New Jersey case in which a judge acknowledged the existence of racial profiling. ''It also doesn't account for the fact that state police gave a handout giving troopers a whole list of traffic violations to use as a pretext for racial profiling. There is so much out there that no one can credibly deny that racial profiling is a reality.''

And? Regardless of reasons for the actual speeding discrepancy, how do you imagine that effects the higher interactions with police? O_o Remember, that was the whole point of that stat.

New research on hiring bias found resumes bearing names traditionally held by blacks and Hispanics are just as likely to lead to callbacks and job interviews as those bearing white-sounding names.

The findings, announced last week by the University of Missouri, diverge from the results of a famous study from more than a decade ago that found Lakishas and Jamals were far less likely to get job interviews than Emilys and Gregs.
- http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/c...story.html

You don't even read the articles you post do you?

"But study co-author Cory Koedel, an associate professor of economics and public policy at the University of Missouri, cautions that it would "be crazy" to interpret the results to suggest hiring discrimination is a problem of the past.

"People should not overreact to this study, but I think it is a data point to be considered when thinking about discrimination in the labor market today," Koedel said."

What? The author interjected personal opinion that somehow alters the facts given?

The study, which only measured the very first step in the hiring process, could suggest that racial discrimination is less prevalent than it was a dozen years ago, the researchers say in a policy paper.
- http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/c...story.html

Plenty of evidence of more violent crime committed by blacks against whites than vice versa. Alas, if you were only intellectually honest enough to bother looking.

Doesn't rule out poverty of the district where crimes occur. All impoverished neighborhoods have a higher crime rate. That's just common sense. And a higher percentage of blacks live near or below the poverty line.

And? Again, go visit each and see which one you fair better in, if you really have no clue.

Higher rate of violent crime = more dangerous
Duh.  Rolleyes
Who said ANYTHING about fining anyone? O_o

You're more likely to experience a violent crime from a white person than from a black person. That's because there are way more whites than blacks. So blacks are not more dangerous to you. Whites are because there are way more white violent crime perpetrators than black ones.

You obviously don't understand statistics. Yes, there are more whites, but the odds that any one white will accost you is lower than that of any one black. According to the FBI, blacks kill over twice the number of whites as whites kill blacks...even though blacks are only ~12% of the population. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/201...r_2013.xls That literally means a white guy is in more danger in a black poor neighborhood than vice versa. Hell, even only 12% of the population kills almost the same number of their own race as whites, who vastly outnumber them. Hence, more dangerous.

Nope, it's only in your own assumption are that of equal importance...which is telling.

I never dismissed the vast difference in importance, other that your lazy straw man that I ever made any such comparison.

You're the idiot that compared the two. Own your own racism you hateful scumbag.

Your own projection, you pathetically guilt-ridden and apparently completely lacking in self-awareness reprobate.

[Magical Realist]

Thanks for continuing to prove how little you understand of science and methods of evidence. You cannot prove or evidence something "not existing". This is the usual troll/crank refrain of "prove me wrong", which is a transparent attempt to shift the burned of proof.

Then don't make unproveable negative assertions. Duh!

Obviously you realize how stupid you sounded and are desperately attempting to justify "Speeding isn't a crime". Rolleyes Tongue
Show me where I said speeding was a "criminal offense" and maybe we'll take this more seriously than the sad excuse for stupid it is.

LOL. Crime = criminal offense. Duh!

See, you call simple facts "digging up dirt", because you know you're a racist scum who desperately needs to assuage your guilt.
Try refuting that study instead of projecting your own racism on others.

Why don't you just tell me why you like digging up dirt on black people? That IS the real issue here isn't it? Your racist hatred for black people, and your failed pathetic attempts to rationally justify that. What did black people ever do to you? Were you bullied by a black kid in school? Perhaps got fired by a black boss?

And? Regardless of reasons for the actual speeding discrepancy, how do you imagine that effects the higher interactions with police? O_o Remember, that was the whole point of that stat.

The speeding incidents weren't interactions with the police dumbass. They were photos taken by cameras on the turnpike. Which raises the question of why you brought up this whole report in the first place.

What? The author interjected personal opinion that somehow alters the facts given? Rolleyes
The study, which only measured the very first step in the hiring process, could suggest that racial discrimination is less prevalent than it was a dozen years ago, the researchers say in a policy paper.
- http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/c...story.html

Sorry, the author herself said this does not indicate discrimination is done and over with. I'll take her word for it.

And? Again, go visit each and see which one you fair better in, if you really have no clue.

Whites commit more violent crimes on whites and blacks commit more violent crimes on blacks. I'd fair better in a black neighborhood going by those stats.

Yes, there are more whites, but the odds that any one white will accost you is lower than that of any one black.

We're not talking the odds of any given white being a violent assaulter. We are talking the odds of being a victim of a violent crime by a white vs a black. And those odds are greater for you being assaulted by a white than by a black. Therefore you are more endangered by white assaulters than black assaulters simply because there are so many more white assaulters and you tend to circulate among white people more.

[Syne]

Thanks for continuing to prove how little you understand of science and methods of evidence. You cannot prove or evidence something "not existing". This is the usual troll/crank refrain of "prove me wrong", which is a transparent attempt to shift the burned of proof.

Then don't make unproveable negative assertions. Duh!

Again, thanks for continuing to confirm that you know zero about science or evidence. The assertion that something does not exist is the null hypothesis. It's the default position all rational people take in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary. In science and standards of evidence, the burden always lies with the positive assertion that something exists.

Fact: Only positive assertions require evidence.

So you demanding proof of a negative assertion is irrational, contradictory, and plain idiotic.
But then you're the local UFO crank.

Obviously you realize how stupid you sounded and are desperately attempting to justify "Speeding isn't a crime".  Rolleyes  Tongue
Show me where I said speeding was a "criminal offense" and maybe we'll take this more seriously than the sad excuse for stupid it is.

LOL. Crime = criminal offense. Duh!

A crime is any unlawful act punishable by the law. But keep repeating your patently ignorant definition. Maybe you'll convince yourself.
At this point, it's little more than a red herring.

See, you call simple facts "digging up dirt", because you know you're a racist scum who desperately needs to assuage your guilt.
Try refuting that study instead of projecting your own racism on others.

Why don't you just tell me why you like digging up dirt on black people? That IS the real issue here isn't it? Your racist hatred for black people, and your failed pathetic attempts to rationally justify that. What did black people ever do to you? Were you bullied by a black kid in school? Perhaps got fired by a black boss?

Again, you're the only one who seems to think facts are "digging up dirt". You're so mired in your racist guilt that you can't even manage to countenance facts without twisting and denying them to assuage said guilt.

Nope, never bullied by any black in school, and I currently have a black boss and work side by side with a black guy in my department daily (both very good guys...granted, the fellow I work with happened to be the only kid he knew growing up with both parents). Perhaps this is just more projection from you. The racist guilt you're trying so hard to assuage to anonymous strangers online may be a result of the racist things you thought being bullied or fired by blacks yourself.

Now you're just petrified with the idea that, yes, some negative facts are more statistically prevalent in certain groups of people. Rational people understand that.

And? Regardless of reasons for the actual speeding discrepancy, how do you imagine that effects the higher interactions with police? O_o Remember, that was the whole point of that stat.

The speeding incidents weren't interactions with the police dumbass. They were photos taken by cameras on the turnpike. Which raises the question of why you brought up this whole report in the first place.

No, nimrod, now you're just conflating the controls of the study with what they demonstrated of the real world.
The study proved blacks speed more.
Separately, that buoys the argument that blacks interact with police more...more speeding being one of the causes.
Try to keep up.

What? The author interjected personal opinion that somehow alters the facts given?  Rolleyes
The study, which only measured the very first step in the hiring process, could suggest that racial discrimination is less prevalent than it was a dozen years ago, the researchers say in a policy paper.
- http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/c...story.html

Sorry, the author herself said this does not indicate discrimination is done and over with. I'll take her word for it.

Apparently you can't distinguish facts from unsupported opinion.
Not to mention your simpleminded appeal to her authority.

And? Again, go visit each and see which one you fair better in, if you really have no clue.

Whites commit more violent crimes on whites and blacks commit more violent crimes on blacks. I'd fair better in a black neighborhood going by those stats.

Again, feel free to go find out for sure.
You still seem completely ignorant of what rates are. Yes, there are many more whites, so the raw numbers, as you so naively state, would seem to indicate higher risk. But the rate of violence, usually per 100,000, means that for each individual you meet, you have a higher chance of harm from a black than white. You just usually meet more whites, on average.

But comparing poor white and black neighborhoods, you are negating the general average and meeting almost exclusively one race. This literally means that you are in more danger in a poor black neighborhood, since each individual is more prone to violence and they are concentrated beyond what you would encounter elsewhere.

Yes, there are more whites, but the odds that any one white will accost you is lower than that of any one black.

We're not talking the odds of any given white being a violent assaulter. We are talking the odds of being a victim of a violent crime by a white vs a black. And those odds are greater for you being assaulted by a white than by a black. Therefore you are more endangered by white assaulters than black assaulters simply because there are so many more white assaulters and you tend to circulate among white people more.

Again, if you're talking about almost exclusively white and black poor neighborhoods, you are effectively isolating each race.

Remember, you asserted that poverty was a major cause of crime. Unless you're poor and live in a predominately poor white neighborhood, you're no more likely to run into a violent white offender than black...unless you live in a democrat controlled city, which is highly segregated.