WaTaGuMp
Lifer
- May 10, 2001
- 21,207
- 2,506
- 126
Originally posted by: Linux23
I guess that's stereotypical black behavior?:roll:
What's stereotypical white behavior?
Going to Nascar races and yelling YEEEEEEEEHAW and calling everyone ya'll.
Originally posted by: Linux23
I guess that's stereotypical black behavior?:roll:
What's stereotypical white behavior?
Originally posted by: Linux23
I guess that's stereotypical black behavior?:roll:
What's stereotypical white behavior? Going postal? Bringing guns to school and having shootouts, ala Matrix style?
Originally posted by: mattocs
Originally posted by: thepd7
Originally posted by: mattocs
This is why I carry a gun. As soon as I was hit, i'd kill them.
7 on 1? You don't have to be hit first, you just have to have a reasonable fear for your life (in TX at least). Not saying I would start shooting but as soon as yelling started and 7 guys are coming at me I am drawing.
Yeah, and you would probably only need to shoot one of them...unless they are on meth or crack and keep coming. Then you might have to shoot them all.
And I don't know if it makes me a bad person, but I would have zero remorse killing someone who threatened my life or the life of a loved one.
Originally posted by: Deeko
Originally posted by: Linux23
I guess that's stereotypical black behavior?:roll:
What's stereotypical white behavior? Going postal? Bringing guns to school and having shootouts, ala Matrix style?
You roll your eyes...but after living on the edge of west philly for 6 years, yes, that IS stereotypical behavior. That sort of thing happened quite often, in fact.
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Svnla
"Today, more African-American men are in jail than in college. In 2000 there were 791,600 black men in prison and 603,032 enrolled in college. In 1980, there were 143,000 black men in prison and 463,700 enrolled in college"
Bolded for reflection. That's disturbing and yet so very, very sad. Bill Cosby is right.
Originally posted by: QED
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: QED
We're kinda getting off-topic here, but the funny part of what you are saying is that typically, inner-city school districts spend as much, if not more, per-pupil than their suburban counterparts. Yet we know those same suburban schools typically outperform the inner-city ones which outspend them. Hence, it appears the problem is not one of funding... but of how resources are managed-- which is all done at the local level.
We can't get off topic since the topic became "I knew they were black."
As to your post something doesn't pass the smell test. You say that inner city schools outspend suburban schools on a per pupil basis?
Yep, typically. Take the Cleveland area for an example. The Cleveland school district is notoriously awful, consistently performing near the bottom in the entire nation in a range a metrics-- from graduation rates to SAT scores.
For the 2005-2006 school year, the Cleveland City School district spent $11,073 per pupil-- more than any of its suburban neighbors, all of whom outpeformed it. Solon, a nearby suburb, spend nearly $1,000 less per-pupil and yet was ranked as one of the top school districts in the nation. Avon, another nearby suburb, spent just $7,104 per student (a nearly $4,000 per student difference), yet outperformed Cleveland.
I don't know what they are factoring in, but mismanagement alone cannot explain why classes of students are using books a decade out of date while suburban kids get new books every few years. Teacher salaries are lower in inner city schools. So where's the money going?
That is a very good question-- because something obviously is not adding up. The teachers make less, they use older books, and yet they spend more. I have heard some urban school districts make the claim that their overhead costs are higher since their school buildings tend to be older and require more maintenance, their student's require more busing than other school districts, etc.
Originally posted by: Linux23
Originally posted by: Deeko
Originally posted by: Linux23
I guess that's stereotypical black behavior?:roll:
What's stereotypical white behavior? Going postal? Bringing guns to school and having shootouts, ala Matrix style?
You roll your eyes...but after living on the edge of west philly for 6 years, yes, that IS stereotypical behavior. That sort of thing happened quite often, in fact.
You don't think being poor and uneducated has anything to do with this? I guess pulling race is more convenient.
Originally posted by: idiotekniQues
someone with brains finally posts
Originally posted by: isekii
Yep all black
Originally posted by: spaceghost21
Originally posted by: isekii
Yep all black
Yes because the fact that they are fucking miserable excuses for human beings is attributable to the color of their skin. :S
Originally posted by: Vonkhan
sad commentary on the state of fairs when no one else steps in & helps out ...
and for the perps - chair
In situations like this, though, people tend to not step in unless others do. I'd like to think that if one of two brave people stepped forward, it would start a chain reaction and others would join in to help.Originally posted by: m1ldslide1
Originally posted by: Vonkhan
sad commentary on the state of affairs when no one else steps in & helps out ...
and for the perps - chair
QFMFT.
Imagine if it is you witnessing the event though. If you're at a fair you're probably by yourself or with your own family. Now you have a decision to make.
Are you willing to sacrifice yourself, potentially in front of your family, because you know what's happening is wrong? (You can be sure that you won't stop it unless you're packing). Furthermore, if you stand any chance of winning, you'll have to use some sort of weapon which will instantly escalate the fight into a death match.
OTOH, do you try to do something more 'reasonable' like call the cops, potentially having your family see you sit this one out. Would that be positive or negative role-modeling?
The best scenario would be several strangers getting together to stop it. Doesn't suprirse me that it didn't happen though. :|
Originally posted by: rivan
You know, as much as I hate to say it, I was assuming their demographic before finishing the read or seeing the photos. It's no different than assuming someone arrested for production of meth would be white and super-rough looking. People do fvcked up stuff - black and white, but statistically speaking, when a group of young adults slapping a 12-year-old's ass then giving the father a beatdown like this, odds are they won't be white.
Now, if it was a lone black man, in the wrong part of some rural area, getting a beatdown like this, I'd assume it was white guys doing the beatdown.
Of course, I'm sure I'll be called a racist for this and someone will dig up an article of 6 white trash dudes doing the same thing to "prove" my racism.
Originally posted by: rivan
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: rivan
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: scott916
Originally posted by: jonks
I don't want to hear any more shit about how all the assholes hang out in P&N
Care to elaborate?
Sure. I could describe in detail the contours of the turd I crapped out last night and it would elevate the level of discussion in this OT thread.
And yet, for the second post in a row, and when asked, you've done nothing to elevate the discussion.
That's the point, there's no elevating a discussion where your purportedly intellectual comment consists of gems like:
Originally posted by: rivan
statistically speaking, when a group of young adults slapping a 12-year-old's ass then giving the father a beatdown like this, odds are they won't be white.
Of course, I'm sure I'll be called a racist for this and someone will dig up an article of 6 white trash dudes doing the same thing to "prove" my racism.
"Odds are" this situation is a "black" crime? I didn't realize blacks had the monopoly on beating up fathers after inappropriately touching their daughters. Granted your post was a step up from the neanderthal offerings on page 1, but that only constitutes a step from moron to idiot. And I don't know whether you reading this story and immediately assuming the attackers were black makes you a racist as much as it makes you a contributor to racism, but the fact that you recognize that someone could probably pull an article showing that the same thing was done by 6 whites should tell you something about your conclusion.
Excellent creative clipping and quoting; I especially like how you totally omit any reference I make to assumptions I make about other criminals being white. I'll respond piece by piece.
"Odds are" this situation is a "black" crime? I didn't realize blacks had the monopoly beating up fathers after inappropriately touching their daughters.
I said they probably wouldn't be white and I stand by that. I didn't say a group of white guys wouldn't kick someone's ass - what I said was that I assumed, based on the total situation, that they'd probably be black. Turns out I wasn't wrong. I could have been, but wasn't.
At no point did I say that black people have a monopoly on anything. In fact, I even pointed to alternatives in the situation where I'd have immediately thought it was white guys.
Granted your post was a step up from the neanderthal offerings on page 1, but that only constitutes a step from moron to idiot.
Seriously? Namecalling doesn't help your case... presenting a rational counter to what I say might. Namecalling will really only give your statements less weight, if not ignored completely.
See if you can get your next post out with an argument without calling anyone names. It'd be refreshing, and everyone here might take you a little more seriously.
And I don't know whether you reading this story and immediately assuming the attackers were black makes you a racist as much as it makes you a contributor to racism, but the fact that you recognize that someone could probably pull an article showing that the same thing was done by 6 whites should tell you something about your conclusion.
Well, as I mentioned in the first post, I was pretty sure someone would come along and take what I said as racism; lo and behold, here you are.
As someone else mentioned, I'm stereotyping. Yep, slap the cuffs on me for seeing a pattern of behavior and expecting it to continue. I guess you glazed over the posts talking about that in an effort to hurriedly get "neanderthal (sic)", "moron", "idiot", and "asshole" into your posts.
There's a gigantic difference between stereotyping and racism that's already been covered in this thread, and I've already conceded that my experience with gang thugs points almost totally to young black men. I know there are thugs out there that are white, latino, black, asian; name your color, I'm sure they've got a gang.
As for contributing to racism; how so? Certainly there are people out there who will take my comments out of context and make it fit whatever frame of mind they want to, and perhaps that person will be white, and a racist, and think I'm on his side.
Heck, you've already done a wonderful job of reading only the parts of my comments that you want to see - why shouldn't everyone else do the same?
Originally posted by: Mwilding
That's big talk. The vision of someone's eyes going lifeless as they bleed out in front of you would probably wake you up at night for years despite your bravado.Originally posted by: mattocs
And I don't know if it makes me a bad person, but I would have zero remorse killing someone who threatened my life or the life of a loved one.
Originally posted by: Anubis
not at all
Originally posted by: Anubis
not at all
Originally posted by: Anubis
not at all
Originally posted by: Deeko
Originally posted by: dainthomas
Originally posted by: thepd7
Originally posted by: mattocs
This is why I carry a gun. As soon as I was hit, i'd kill them.
7 on 1? You don't have to be hit first, you just have to have a reasonable fear for your life (in TX at least). Not saying I would start shooting but as soon as yelling started and 7 guys are coming at me I am drawing.
Haha, those punks would scatter like roaches.
You make the assumption that all 7 of them weren't packing themselves, and that you simply drawing your gun causes them to all open fire on you. Now you are not just beaten, you're dead, and possibly your daughter gets hit in the crossfire, too. Maybe you get one of them, maybe not....
I'm just saying. A gun does not automatically make you a god. 7 on 1 is still 7 on 1.
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: mattocs
This is why I carry a gun. As soon as I was hit, i'd kill them.
Let's see...
7 assailants. My carry weapon's capacity is 7 rounds in the magazine plus one in the chamber. Even though I carry "hot", I do not like those odds.
That's not to say I wouldn't draw, but I'd definitely recognise it as a somewhat less-than-ideal defensive situation.
ZV
Originally posted by: Oceandevi
Originally posted by: QED
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: QED
We're kinda getting off-topic here, but the funny part of what you are saying is that typically, inner-city school districts spend as much, if not more, per-pupil than their suburban counterparts. Yet we know those same suburban schools typically outperform the inner-city ones which outspend them. Hence, it appears the problem is not one of funding... but of how resources are managed-- which is all done at the local level.
We can't get off topic since the topic became "I knew they were black."
As to your post something doesn't pass the smell test. You say that inner city schools outspend suburban schools on a per pupil basis?
Yep, typically. Take the Cleveland area for an example. The Cleveland school district is notoriously awful, consistently performing near the bottom in the entire nation in a range a metrics-- from graduation rates to SAT scores.
For the 2005-2006 school year, the Cleveland City School district spent $11,073 per pupil-- more than any of its suburban neighbors, all of whom outpeformed it. Solon, a nearby suburb, spend nearly $1,000 less per-pupil and yet was ranked as one of the top school districts in the nation. Avon, another nearby suburb, spent just $7,104 per student (a nearly $4,000 per student difference), yet outperformed Cleveland.
I don't know what they are factoring in, but mismanagement alone cannot explain why classes of students are using books a decade out of date while suburban kids get new books every few years. Teacher salaries are lower in inner city schools. So where's the money going?
That is a very good question-- because something obviously is not adding up. The teachers make less, they use older books, and yet they spend more. I have heard some urban school districts make the claim that their overhead costs are higher since their school buildings tend to be older and require more maintenance, their student's require more busing than other school districts, etc.
the money is skimmed, stolen, its corruption.
