John 1/O'reily 0
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
163 comments displayed.
#46
-
freedombirdman (09/16/2014) [-] 
Out of principle I cannot approve of profiling, because it violates the basic idea of 'innocent until proven guilty'. It is one thing to investigate and apprehend an individual who is clearly plotting a crime (there is evidence traceable to them), it is quite another to harass someone because they belong to a certain ethic, social, or religious group. Regardless of what statistics say, being Muslim does not automatically make you a potential terrorist, nor does being Black make you a potential gangbanger. I do not apply statistics to these situations because I refuse to gamble with the natural rights of innocent people. Until someone actually commits a crime, their rights and freedoms are not ours to gamble with, regardless of what the numbers say.
I'm rarely one to pull 'ism' cards, but profiling is at it's core racism/anti-theism, for it assumes knowledge of motives and intentions based solely on race and religion. This not only violates the principle of innocent until proven guilty as I mentioned before, it violates our freedoms of religion/speech and the natural rights of all humans.
I'm rarely one to pull 'ism' cards, but profiling is at it's core racism/anti-theism, for it assumes knowledge of motives and intentions based solely on race and religion. This not only violates the principle of innocent until proven guilty as I mentioned before, it violates our freedoms of religion/speech and the natural rights of all humans.
#235 to #46
-
jdizzleoffthehizzl (09/16/2014) [-]
That guy said your idea is dangerous......better put it away before you hurt someone
I agree with you so hard though
I agree with you so hard though
#271 to #46
-
struttndatass (09/16/2014) [-] whatever happened to that freedombirdman series you were making?
#278 to #271
-
freedombirdman (09/16/2014) [-] Wasn't terribly well received the first time, so I put it on the back burner to work on other things. Honestly making OC is a lot of work, and I find my comments are more appreciated than any content I post.
#279 to #278
-
struttndatass (09/16/2014) [-] well i liked it, but thats very understandable, know all about the commitment proper OC takes
#120 to #46
-
severepwner (09/16/2014) [-] You're not wrong, but your mindset is ******* dangerous. I DO NOT condone racism or bigotry. What I do condone, is safety. Harassment is wrong without a doubt, but I don't want them to stop racial profiling. Unfortunately most terrorists are Middle Eastern, so this makes them a suspect.
I don't like it, I really don't. I don't like suspecting my fellow neighbor just because of his skin color or religion, but it's simply safer if I do. Again I don't want to harass them, I just want to check them.
Have you ever been patted down before entering somewhere? They didn't do it because of how you looked or what you thought (this sometimes applies like here I know), they did it because they don't want weapons going in there for the purpose of harming someone.
Think of it this way, terrorism affects innocent muslims and Middle Easterners too. As in they could very well be in the casualty list of a terrorist bombing and be innocent. They are not separate from us in that fact. But when you're innocent, you'll be protected no matter what, but that doesn't mean we can't suspect you. Once you're proven innocent that's it, you won't be punished you'll be let go because you're through and have proven yourself, and have ruled yourself out as a potential terrorist, what's wrong with that?
Public safety and saving lives (including the lives of muslims and Middle Easterners) > Not being offensive, being indiscriminate, and suspecting the main suspect
I don't like it, I really don't. I don't like suspecting my fellow neighbor just because of his skin color or religion, but it's simply safer if I do. Again I don't want to harass them, I just want to check them.
Have you ever been patted down before entering somewhere? They didn't do it because of how you looked or what you thought (this sometimes applies like here I know), they did it because they don't want weapons going in there for the purpose of harming someone.
Think of it this way, terrorism affects innocent muslims and Middle Easterners too. As in they could very well be in the casualty list of a terrorist bombing and be innocent. They are not separate from us in that fact. But when you're innocent, you'll be protected no matter what, but that doesn't mean we can't suspect you. Once you're proven innocent that's it, you won't be punished you'll be let go because you're through and have proven yourself, and have ruled yourself out as a potential terrorist, what's wrong with that?
Public safety and saving lives (including the lives of muslims and Middle Easterners) > Not being offensive, being indiscriminate, and suspecting the main suspect
#162 to #120
-
ericzxvc (09/16/2014) [-] If you're not guilty why can't I just stop you on the street ask for your ID and search you? It's for everyone's safety, and once I have ruled you out as not a threat you can go on your way.
And if you're innocent then I should be able to search your entire house, what's the problem if you're not guilty? I'm not trying to harass you, just check you. I only did it because I don't want anything illegal to be in your home. I don't like doing it, but it's simply safer to go through all your belongings and check if anything's dangerous.
”If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both.”
-Benjamin Franklin
And if you're innocent then I should be able to search your entire house, what's the problem if you're not guilty? I'm not trying to harass you, just check you. I only did it because I don't want anything illegal to be in your home. I don't like doing it, but it's simply safer to go through all your belongings and check if anything's dangerous.
”If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both.”
-Benjamin Franklin
#324 to #162
-
severepwner (09/16/2014) [-] I'm not saying we have to go on Martial ******* law here, but it's like you guys forget terrorist attacks are a thing.
Might as well throw out the red carpet, come right on in suspicious individual, I'm not going to suspect you I'm a progressive person! Oh no! That plane was destroyed and a hospital suffered a serious explosion killing more than a hundred people, man I really wish I caught that.
Might as well throw out the red carpet, come right on in suspicious individual, I'm not going to suspect you I'm a progressive person! Oh no! That plane was destroyed and a hospital suffered a serious explosion killing more than a hundred people, man I really wish I caught that.
#170 to #120
-
certifiedidiot (09/16/2014) [-] Sorry, but reversing "Innocent til proven guilty" into "Guilty til proven innocent" is a ******* hideous idea
#323 to #170
-
severepwner (09/16/2014) [-] I never said they start out guilty. It's common in every criminal investigation to have suspects. What is it offensive to have suspects now?
Woman dead, known to have rocky relationship with husband, and husband doesn't have a perfect alibi. The husband's a suspect, he's not ******* guilty, but he's a suspect.
But we can't suspect the husband! How dare you assume that there's a possibility he murdered his wife! Everything goes perfect no matter what here!
Suspects are meant to be pinned for the perpetrator, or ruled out. Racial profiling (at least not in this case) isn't convicting someone of a crime based upon their skin color.
Woman dead, known to have rocky relationship with husband, and husband doesn't have a perfect alibi. The husband's a suspect, he's not ******* guilty, but he's a suspect.
But we can't suspect the husband! How dare you assume that there's a possibility he murdered his wife! Everything goes perfect no matter what here!
Suspects are meant to be pinned for the perpetrator, or ruled out. Racial profiling (at least not in this case) isn't convicting someone of a crime based upon their skin color.
#325 to #323
-
certifiedidiot (09/16/2014) [-] He's a suspect, but you don't act on it til you have proper evidence.
The US have tried this whole "They're from this region/skin color" before, when they sent all the Japanese US citizens to internment camps.
You CAN'T morally say that you become a suspect of a crime simply because of where you were born, the color of your skin and etc, you can't do that and still be morally just, you simply can't.
The US have tried this whole "They're from this region/skin color" before, when they sent all the Japanese US citizens to internment camps.
You CAN'T morally say that you become a suspect of a crime simply because of where you were born, the color of your skin and etc, you can't do that and still be morally just, you simply can't.
#326 to #325
-
severepwner (09/16/2014) [-] For some reason all you guys complain about this violation, but would you be complaining if that's what stopped a terrorist attack? Like do you guys even give a **** about security? We're not putting Muslims and Arabs on the firing wall, or gassing them, or immediately convicting them when we see them. We have to have a line so we can prevent more attacks from happening. Being all PC and progressive isn't going to stop terrorist attacks, catching them will.
The agenda that they belong to has a notorious history for being responsible of terrorism. It is unfortunate, but that's simply what happened and we have to respond to the matter accordingly. It's simply the hand we were dealt.
The agenda that they belong to has a notorious history for being responsible of terrorism. It is unfortunate, but that's simply what happened and we have to respond to the matter accordingly. It's simply the hand we were dealt.
#328 to #326
-
certifiedidiot (09/16/2014) [-] I do give a **** about security, but I refuse to let the actions of my enemies dictate the actions of mine, same reason I am against capital punishment, I will NOT stoop to such lows.
You can never stop evil or crime, never, you deal with it on an individual basis.
And you don't garner allies by being dicks to the people of that region/religion/skin color, you don't make friends with them by using drones that rain missiles from high in the sky where you blatantly accept civilian loses without warning.
How do you think they like life? Living in poorer conditions because of where you were born while others enjoy splendor, comfort and ease simply because where they were born, to live in a country where a bomb going off out of nowhere is to be considered an acceptable way of life, caught in the middle of a feud between one of the mightiest nations on earth versus a bunch of madmen, and then you would have the arrogance to discriminate against them?
Sure, have a ******* line, but make it equal line, make it equal for all, I will die anyway eventually one way or an other and so will you, so will this planet and even our sun along with the rest of the universe, on the grand scale dying matters very little, but what is of importance is the strength of ones character in the face of hardship, not how quickly you will sell morals and decency.
You can never stop evil or crime, never, you deal with it on an individual basis.
And you don't garner allies by being dicks to the people of that region/religion/skin color, you don't make friends with them by using drones that rain missiles from high in the sky where you blatantly accept civilian loses without warning.
How do you think they like life? Living in poorer conditions because of where you were born while others enjoy splendor, comfort and ease simply because where they were born, to live in a country where a bomb going off out of nowhere is to be considered an acceptable way of life, caught in the middle of a feud between one of the mightiest nations on earth versus a bunch of madmen, and then you would have the arrogance to discriminate against them?
Sure, have a ******* line, but make it equal line, make it equal for all, I will die anyway eventually one way or an other and so will you, so will this planet and even our sun along with the rest of the universe, on the grand scale dying matters very little, but what is of importance is the strength of ones character in the face of hardship, not how quickly you will sell morals and decency.
#329 to #328
-
severepwner (09/16/2014) [-] For some reason you act like their financial troubles, and difficult life are my fault and something I don't sympathize with. You also think I recommend the unjust murder of them.
I don't hate them, I'm not a racist, it's not their fault they were born within an agenda that has infamy with it. It's unfortunate, but it's no one's fault except terrorists.
I don't hate them, I'm not a racist, it's not their fault they were born within an agenda that has infamy with it. It's unfortunate, but it's no one's fault except terrorists.
#121 to #120
-
severepwner (09/16/2014) [-] *and not suspecting the main suspect (wanted to avoid confusion)
#310 to #120
-
iviagic (09/16/2014) [-] Your claims aren't even right.
"Most terrorists are Middle Eastern."
Wrong. Arabs/Muslims make up a mere 6% of all terrorism cases on American soil. And that's a pretty small figure considering what we've been doing on Middle Eastern soil.
www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/not-all-terrorists-are-muslims/
"Most terrorists are Middle Eastern."
Wrong. Arabs/Muslims make up a mere 6% of all terrorism cases on American soil. And that's a pretty small figure considering what we've been doing on Middle Eastern soil.
www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/not-all-terrorists-are-muslims/
#111 to #46
-
nanako ONLINE (09/16/2014) [-] >Regardless of what statistics say
Do you not see a problem with this sentance? It's a more polite way of saying
"The evidence disagrees with my worldview, so i choose to disregard it."
i understand the moral implications here, ive thought the same way but over time i'm of the opinion that this is an issue where emotions conflict with facts.
Do you not see a problem with this sentance? It's a more polite way of saying
"The evidence disagrees with my worldview, so i choose to disregard it."
i understand the moral implications here, ive thought the same way but over time i'm of the opinion that this is an issue where emotions conflict with facts.
#156 to #111
-
ericzxvc (09/16/2014) [-] Did you even understand his comment? He never once denied that there was a correlation or statistic that made one group more likely than another, he was stating that it violated human rights to profile someone with no evidence other than race/religion.
Also it's "sentence".
You need to go back to reading comprehension class. I'm not sure that would actually help however, as your comment was probably written purely based on the first sentence.
Also it's "sentence".
You need to go back to reading comprehension class. I'm not sure that would actually help however, as your comment was probably written purely based on the first sentence.
#242 to #106
-
anon (09/16/2014) [-]
From what I understand, it ceases to be this objectionable action of 'profiling' if you do it to everyone. If you want to buy a gun, you should get a background check and a psychiatric evaluation. If you aren't currently on the run from the law and you check out as being at least moderately sane, you pass.
#257 to #106
-
freedombirdman (09/16/2014) [-] I would also consider that profiling, as the act of buying a gun does not make you a potential murderer any more than buying a car does. People buy guns for many reasons (sport, hunting, novelty collections) unrelated to crime or even legitimate self defense. Profiling gun owners is assuming an intent to kill that is not supported by evidence.
It is not right to persecute someone on mere 'statistics', there must be clear evidence that someone is plotting to commit a crime.
As a side note, few gun crimes are committed by legal gun owners, the vast majority involve stolen weapons or weapons sold on the black market.
It is not right to persecute someone on mere 'statistics', there must be clear evidence that someone is plotting to commit a crime.
As a side note, few gun crimes are committed by legal gun owners, the vast majority involve stolen weapons or weapons sold on the black market.
#344 to #257
-
camzore (09/17/2014) [-] I dunno man, I'm sure you have heard this rebuttal I'm about to say but the difference between guns and cars is that guns are designed to kill. I'm fully aware that you can buy guns for spots or even collecting just like you can with cars but the gun was created back in the day to kill, no more, no less. Guns are by nature instruments of lethality whilst cars aren't that by nature at all.
For instance (pardon the bad analogy): While you can run over and kill people with cars you can also rush people to the hospital in a car. A gun on the other hand is not so simple. The only way of saving someone with a gun is shooting someone who is threating them, which isn't a very nice solution. The only way you can rush someone to the hospital with a gun is if you shoot them and call an ambulance.
Don't you think it’s reasonable to just give a background check on people who want to buy a gun, regardless of who they are? It's such a small sacrifice of liberty to ensure you aren’t selling to a psycho, thus saving lives. Or am I accidently merging two different things together and profiling and background checks are 2 completely different things… idk.
I’m not an American, I’ve never been the country so maybe I’m not qualified to make any judgments. But in my country we have strict gun laws and we haven’t had a mass shooting for over 20 years. Then again they’re different cultures and different populations etc. Just food for thought, friend, I genuinely understand where you’re coming from. I just don’t think it’s worth risking people dying over a little bit of privacy and freedom.
For instance (pardon the bad analogy): While you can run over and kill people with cars you can also rush people to the hospital in a car. A gun on the other hand is not so simple. The only way of saving someone with a gun is shooting someone who is threating them, which isn't a very nice solution. The only way you can rush someone to the hospital with a gun is if you shoot them and call an ambulance.
Don't you think it’s reasonable to just give a background check on people who want to buy a gun, regardless of who they are? It's such a small sacrifice of liberty to ensure you aren’t selling to a psycho, thus saving lives. Or am I accidently merging two different things together and profiling and background checks are 2 completely different things… idk.
I’m not an American, I’ve never been the country so maybe I’m not qualified to make any judgments. But in my country we have strict gun laws and we haven’t had a mass shooting for over 20 years. Then again they’re different cultures and different populations etc. Just food for thought, friend, I genuinely understand where you’re coming from. I just don’t think it’s worth risking people dying over a little bit of privacy and freedom.
#346 to #344
-
freedombirdman (09/17/2014) [-] profiling and background checks are two different things. Profiling would mean "someone just committed a murder, let's search the house of every gun owner in the city"
#6
-
feudd (09/15/2014) [-] 2nd most reliable news reporter in the US
first is Stephen Colbert sorry
first is Stephen Colbert sorry
#28 to #6
-
MrDeadiron (09/16/2014) [-] They're not though, they're both as biased as the rest of mainstream media.
#135 to #32
-
durkadurka (09/16/2014) [-] But that's the danger with it. Any information they're giving is presented from a biased point of view, clips and information are often presented out of context, etc. Basically it's like cable news except the goal is to be intentionally funny.
Sorting the facts out of these kinds of shows requires you to have a prior knowledge of the content anyways.
No one should be relying on comedy shows for their news (or cable news for that matter).
Sorting the facts out of these kinds of shows requires you to have a prior knowledge of the content anyways.
No one should be relying on comedy shows for their news (or cable news for that matter).
#229 to #135
-
Sdgnuipaegr (09/16/2014) [-] That's why Gonzo journalism exists. Hunter S. Thompson believed it was impossible to be completely unbiased as the reporter/journalist is inherently biased one way or the other. He decided to do the complete opposite and be so openly biased that it didn't matter.
#63 to #28
-
zombygoast (09/16/2014) [-] It's part of the "Character" they play. They make fun of those super biased groups.
#133 to #63
-
hankhillofthe (09/16/2014) [-] Eh, Colbert plays a damn good character, but Jon is just Jon.
#199 to #133
-
zombygoast (09/16/2014) [-] Jon doesn't play a character? I guess I didn't realize that.
#186 to #28
-
icameforthepron (09/16/2014) [-] This is the sad fact. When comedians are more trusted to give accurate information then actual journalists.
People should be watching their shows for satire and laughs not factual information.
People should be watching their shows for satire and laughs not factual information.
#237 to #186
-
fjusernumberone (09/16/2014) [-] That's how it should be but sadly we live in a time where reporting is no longer about the people's interest. It's about the owners' interests. They aren't reporting for us but for the big dogs
#38 to #6
-
sandpounder (09/16/2014) [-] I wish Colbert would do a moment of Zen like the daily show does I don't stay through the commercials just to hear Colbert say goodnight
#76 to #6
-
thebeatlesfan (09/16/2014) [-]
I personally prefer Stewart but Colbert is great as well. And John Oliver is doing some great things too on his own show
#35
-
politicsnstuff (09/16/2014) [-] The vast majority of murders in America are committed by democrats
#309 to #105
-
commontroll (09/16/2014) [-] I'm amazed no conspiracy nuts have barged in on this.
However, ultimately, school shootings actually are mostly done by black people, usually gang related. What you're talking about is a school mass shooting where there are multiple victims. The main thing to keep in mind is that almost all of these happen in small towns, the school being the "main stage" for these people to have their actions ring throughout the nation. In a town of 10,000 people, one of the most central places is the high school.
That being said, most small towns are predominantly white. The other fact of the matter is that in the grand scale school mass shootings aren't common enough to actually affect the numbers. Don't get me wrong, you have to be an absolute monster to do something like that, but to try and say that black and Hispanic crime statistics are null because every now and then somebody goes and gets themselves into the national limelight by shooting a bunch of kids is just inaccurate and dumb.
Though the "Black Problem" bit is just straight up racism. The real issue is blacks pressuring other black people into feeling shame for being "white-washed," which is really just being ******* civilized and not turning to violence over the slightest thing. Wearing the wrong color in the wrong neighborhood can and will literally have you shot on site, that's not a black problem, that's a culture problem.
However, ultimately, school shootings actually are mostly done by black people, usually gang related. What you're talking about is a school mass shooting where there are multiple victims. The main thing to keep in mind is that almost all of these happen in small towns, the school being the "main stage" for these people to have their actions ring throughout the nation. In a town of 10,000 people, one of the most central places is the high school.
That being said, most small towns are predominantly white. The other fact of the matter is that in the grand scale school mass shootings aren't common enough to actually affect the numbers. Don't get me wrong, you have to be an absolute monster to do something like that, but to try and say that black and Hispanic crime statistics are null because every now and then somebody goes and gets themselves into the national limelight by shooting a bunch of kids is just inaccurate and dumb.
Though the "Black Problem" bit is just straight up racism. The real issue is blacks pressuring other black people into feeling shame for being "white-washed," which is really just being ******* civilized and not turning to violence over the slightest thing. Wearing the wrong color in the wrong neighborhood can and will literally have you shot on site, that's not a black problem, that's a culture problem.
#36 to #35
-
suburbansoldier (09/16/2014) [-]
if i could share this on social media without being ostracized, I would. It's ******* perfect.
#195 to #177
-
icameforthepron (09/16/2014) [-] At least 8 Asian shooters, maybe 3 Latinos, 5 Blacks, 3 Native Americans and 5 women
after a quick search
after a quick search
#223 to #216
-
anon (09/16/2014) [-]
Since Sandy hook, there have been 74 school shootings in the USA (yes, since december 2012)
Assuming, as incredibly unlikely as it is, all of the black shooters committed their shooting in those 2 years, this equates to only 6.75675675676% of the shooters.
If we factor in ALL the "minorities" you've listed, 21.6216216216% would have been committed by NON whites, again, this is hypothetical, since your number of a whopping 16 people, is likely a summary total, and my number of 74 school shootings is the summation of only shootings since Sandy Hook.
Under these hypothetical conditions, 78.378378379% of the shooters were white.
Unfortunately, I couldn't find a "total number" of school shootings in the US, if i wasn't lazy I could have counted them all up, but that might take a while.
The reality is that, in all likelihood, over 98% of school shooters are white, male, and using a legally purchased firearm.
Assuming, as incredibly unlikely as it is, all of the black shooters committed their shooting in those 2 years, this equates to only 6.75675675676% of the shooters.
If we factor in ALL the "minorities" you've listed, 21.6216216216% would have been committed by NON whites, again, this is hypothetical, since your number of a whopping 16 people, is likely a summary total, and my number of 74 school shootings is the summation of only shootings since Sandy Hook.
Under these hypothetical conditions, 78.378378379% of the shooters were white.
Unfortunately, I couldn't find a "total number" of school shootings in the US, if i wasn't lazy I could have counted them all up, but that might take a while.
The reality is that, in all likelihood, over 98% of school shooters are white, male, and using a legally purchased firearm.
#183 to #124
-
commontroll (09/16/2014) [-] I'm a right-winger. I think the real thing we need to do is have the black and hispanic cultures less dependent on things like welfare and they need a culture shift from glorifying crime and violence. The reason they need to be independent from government handouts is because with the way it works now, it's better to not work and just collect welfare, and if you sell drugs on the side then it's incredibly worth it. Welfare only makes people dependent on the government, so of course they'll vote for the hands feeding them. It's just a way of voter control.
#274 to #183
-
hongkongdingdong (09/16/2014) [-]
Considering that was FDR's original plan.. It's not hard to see why that's the most optimal solution. He also warned about it becoming abused like it is now.
I'm not sure why people don't bring it up but it's probably similar in reasoning to why so many people are turning towards socialism. One of my friends is in love with FDR but is all for socialism.. So it doesn't really make sense.
Although, those dependent on the government aren't necessarily more inclined to vote for the legislatures that make them dependent. Most are lazy or lack the eagerness to get out of their situation, and a good majority would agree with your view and are probably ashamed of themselves. I know people do flaunt it and some will be driving a really nice car and still fall under the 1 car limitation... but I don't think they are the majority.
I'm not sure why people don't bring it up but it's probably similar in reasoning to why so many people are turning towards socialism. One of my friends is in love with FDR but is all for socialism.. So it doesn't really make sense.
Although, those dependent on the government aren't necessarily more inclined to vote for the legislatures that make them dependent. Most are lazy or lack the eagerness to get out of their situation, and a good majority would agree with your view and are probably ashamed of themselves. I know people do flaunt it and some will be driving a really nice car and still fall under the 1 car limitation... but I don't think they are the majority.
#304 to #274
-
commontroll (09/16/2014) [-] I don't mean flaunting it, I mean that it's literally easier to feed your family on welfare and unemployed than it is to feed them working minimum wage, or even if you do have more than minimum wage, due to how the tiers work. You can get a raise and earn two more dollars an hour and suddenly you've lost ten thousand a year because of how the system works.
#141 to #124
-
demigodofmadness (09/16/2014) [-] That's the typical reaction from a racist piece of **** , who tend to have right winged views, don't lump me in with them. This just shows that we don't need gun laws, we need to crack down on gang activity. If we outlaw guns, gangs will still be able to get their hands on them and the only difference is the white guy walking through the wrong neighborhood won't have any protection.
#164 to #35
-
whistleandrun (09/16/2014) [-] So are you saying that biologically, genetically, black people are predisposed to be more criminal? Not sure you've got science backing you up on that one.
Or maybe you agree that there are complex socioeconomic factors at play that need to be addressed?
Or maybe you agree that there are complex socioeconomic factors at play that need to be addressed?
#340 to #164
-
haeckal (09/17/2014) [-] Since genes do influence behavior, a truly open-minded person would consider that. There is a strong circumstantial evidence to suggest that socioeconomic factors don't explain high levels of black crime - for instance black crime went up drastically during the Civil Rights Movement, and poor white areas like West Virginia are much less violent that poor black areas like Detroit.
#270 to #164
-
hongkongdingdong (09/16/2014) [-]
Has there even been a study on the chemical releases in the brain differing per race? I've seen physical difference, but they are minimal.. I haven't seen one regarding brain activity though.. That would be interesting, I'm almost positive they will give different results from each other. Even when taking the average and the margin of error into account they may differ. What if Whites brains were more excitable during physically straining activity or asians more excitable when they bang.. That would be a really cool study. It'd also have the chance to dispute inclinations of crime in each race..
#14
-
thegrimgenius (09/16/2014) [-] >~75% Gun homicides by blacks (Who tend not to be republicans)
>Most of all the deaths are suicides
>Fox viewers
>Most of all the deaths are suicides
>Fox viewers
#130 to #86
-
thegrimgenius (09/16/2014) [-] Dub is kind of shoddy, but dubs are almost always better. Seeing emotions on characters faces, etc. etc. Animation is un-conventional to say the least though.
#17 to #16
-
thegrimgenius (09/16/2014) [-] Back during the cold war, we didn't like Russians much, three guesses why. Especially after all the spying. You have a terrorist attack with an old U.S. group going rogue with an old friend to the Americans behind it, what do you do? Also, never said I supported it, just saying that what he said was really, really wrong.
#318 to #260
-
thegrimgenius (09/16/2014) [-] In the movie yes. In the (horrible) anime, no. In the manga it's never specifically mentioned.
#187 to #16
-
icameforthepron (09/16/2014) [-] yeah Israel uses it in their airports and it works great.
#23 to #14
-
trollofhalo (09/16/2014) [-] Considering that most of the black population in the U.S. is poor to lower middle class, I wouldn't believe that most of them WOULD be Republicans.
#188 to #23
-
icameforthepron (09/16/2014) [-] Because they are in poor to lower middle class, they are so dependant on Govt Welfare which is what the Democrats push, thus they are more likely to be liberal.
Republicans would rather see someone rise out of the mire by their own merits with very limited help from the Government. But because this includes self-responsibility and hard work, people don't like it.
All people in general are lazy assholes and will take any shortcut they can find.
Republicans would rather see someone rise out of the mire by their own merits with very limited help from the Government. But because this includes self-responsibility and hard work, people don't like it.
All people in general are lazy assholes and will take any shortcut they can find.
#334 to #244
-
icameforthepron (09/17/2014) [-] You know, back in the day, minimum wage was just that...minimum. You didn't have people making minimum wage for years on end. It was never supposed to be a level of wage that you can live off of.
#41 to #14
-
twofreegerbils (09/16/2014) [-] Isn't it ridiculous that a demographic that makes up only 14% of our population accounts for well over half of our violent crime?
#29
-
haeckal (09/16/2014) [-] When you're talking about lethal terrorism around the globe, most of the perpetrators (as well as most of the victims) are Muslims.
fas.org/irp/threat/nctc2011.pdf
When you're talking about homicide in the United States, most of the perpetrators (as well as most of the victims) are blacks.
www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf
Gun owners, whites, Republicans, Christians, Fox News watchers - none of these groups are overrepresented among perpetrators of violent crime or terrorism.
fas.org/irp/threat/nctc2011.pdf
When you're talking about homicide in the United States, most of the perpetrators (as well as most of the victims) are blacks.
www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf
Gun owners, whites, Republicans, Christians, Fox News watchers - none of these groups are overrepresented among perpetrators of violent crime or terrorism.
#134 to #29
-
anon (09/16/2014) [-]
Muslims account for 6% of the worlds terrorism. Gtfo with your fake staristics.
www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/not-all-terrorists-are-muslims/
www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/not-all-terrorists-are-muslims/
#140 to #134
-
haeckal (09/16/2014) [-] My terrorism source is the NCTC, a US government publication, just like the FBI statistics the article you link to relies on. Notice, however, two important details:
1) I'm looking at terrorism around the world, not just in the USA - your study only looks at the USA, not the world.
2) I said lethal terrorism. I'm talking about the number of dead bodies, not the number of "incidents" which can be anything from 9/11 to eco-terrorists vandalizing SUVs.
If you actually count the number of deaths from your own source, Muslims are responsible for most of the terrorist killings in the USA, even though they make up about 1% of the population.
1) I'm looking at terrorism around the world, not just in the USA - your study only looks at the USA, not the world.
2) I said lethal terrorism. I'm talking about the number of dead bodies, not the number of "incidents" which can be anything from 9/11 to eco-terrorists vandalizing SUVs.
If you actually count the number of deaths from your own source, Muslims are responsible for most of the terrorist killings in the USA, even though they make up about 1% of the population.
#315 to #140
-
anon (09/16/2014) [-]
Your paper on page 9 states that there were about 10000 attacks in 2011 for argument sake lets say 75% are Sunni as your paper implies, the amount of radical Sunni's seem like a drop of water in a population with more than a million, so statistically speaking I really don't think these claims, any of them for that matter, are significant for making generalizing statements, you gotta take the bigger picture
#147 to #134
-
anonymousfinn (09/16/2014) [-]
Well, according to your statistics, 6% of the terrorism in the US*
#90 to #29
-
rockamekishiko ONLINE (09/16/2014) [-] that may be true and even if it is 100% true, you can't condemn EVERY muslim or EVERY black person. that's what Jon is saying
#33 to #30
-
landcucumber (09/16/2014) [-]
I don't like how if someone makes a real point he goes "hay i make fart jokes". Real hard to talk to someone who attacks you then when you say something that counters them they get to say your talking to the wrong person.
#241
-
midothegreat (09/16/2014) [-] im gonna grab a snack before reading the comment section i think
#263
-
anon (09/16/2014) [-]
HURR HURRR HURRR FOX IS BAD BECAUSE THEY SAY ITS BAD
Seriously though, John Stewart? That's who you're going to take seriously?
Seriously though, John Stewart? That's who you're going to take seriously?
#268
-
ronjeremysweiner (09/16/2014) [-]
sometimes jon stewart can be funny, but like all liberal ******** he takes everything out of context
and when he brings people like this on, it sounds like jons winning because hes surrounded by a crowd of other liberal douches
how about they have a debate with a conservative audience, then jon will look like an idiot
and when he brings people like this on, it sounds like jons winning because hes surrounded by a crowd of other liberal douches
how about they have a debate with a conservative audience, then jon will look like an idiot
#175
-
kanatana (09/16/2014) [-] When will FOX and the Republican party learn to stop sending their people over to Comedy Central? The local hospitals are complaining due to the high frequency of anal tearing incidents that are originating from there.
#31
-
liberalgodess (09/16/2014) [-] AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I love John Stewart so much.
Republicans are so DUMB!!!
I love John Stewart so much.
Republicans are so DUMB!!!
#50 to #49
-
liberalgodess (09/16/2014) [-] Trolling?
This is the normal reaction to The Daily Show content that everyone seems to have...
This is the normal reaction to The Daily Show content that everyone seems to have...
#53 to #50
-
Penn (09/16/2014) [-]
You haven't been here long have you?
"Republicans are so dumb"
???
Have you not seen the ********** of political idiocy that this site brings up for debate?
"Republicans are so dumb"
???
Have you not seen the ********** of political idiocy that this site brings up for debate?
#55 to #53
-
liberalgodess (09/16/2014) [-] "republicans are so dumb" is the standard theme of the daily show
#102 to #55
-
armsdealer (09/16/2014) [-] He likes to rag on Republicans because they're easier to make fun of. He regularly rags on Democrats as well, but for more pressing issues like corruption. Call him a liberal fag all you want, but at least he's more biased than the "News" organization that he trashes.
#122 to #102
-
severepwner (09/16/2014) [-] More bias is good?
I'm going to assume that was a typo because that doesn't make sense.
I'm going to assume that was a typo because that doesn't make sense.
#142 to #122
-
demigodofmadness (09/16/2014) [-] He prefers his news casters to openly side with all of his view points.
#172
-
thebroble (09/16/2014) [-] I live with Fox viewers so this.....this is great and much needed.
#9
-
twofreegerbils (09/16/2014) [-] If you take away the suicides, it doesn't even meet the aforementioned 14,000 incident threshold. I think it's something like 11,000 intentional manslaughter incidents a year.
But, statistics are no fun if you don't cherrypick them.
But, statistics are no fun if you don't cherrypick them.
#58 to #9
-
chilloutdude ONLINE (09/16/2014) [-] If a gun ends a life, does it really matter who pulled the trigger? not speaking from a technical standpoint.
#240 to #58
-
twofreegerbils (09/16/2014) [-] First of all, no gun has ever ended a life, but people have ended lives with guns.
Secondly, it does matter who pulled the trigger. If someone wants to end their own life, it's their own choice.
If you want to address the problem of suicide rates in this country (which isn't really that bad compared to others), then you should do so completely independent of any gun control debate. The two are not related at all.
Secondly, it does matter who pulled the trigger. If someone wants to end their own life, it's their own choice.
If you want to address the problem of suicide rates in this country (which isn't really that bad compared to others), then you should do so completely independent of any gun control debate. The two are not related at all.
#347 to #240
-
chilloutdude ONLINE (09/17/2014) [-] That is a terrible way to look at suicide, a majority of suicides happen when the person is depressed or under some sort of state where they lack real judgement and decision making skills, and to say its their own choice is to say that killing themselves would only affect themselves, which again, in a majority of cases, is not the case.
I'm not saying gun control is related in anyway to suicide or vice verse, and I'm not for or against gun control, but it still doesn't take away from the fact that people are killing themselves and others with guns, I'm not saying it's the guns fault, or the gun manufacturer's fault, but i think there needs to be something done to lower that number, regardless of whether the lowering comes from the homicide or suicide part.
I'm not saying gun control is related in anyway to suicide or vice verse, and I'm not for or against gun control, but it still doesn't take away from the fact that people are killing themselves and others with guns, I'm not saying it's the guns fault, or the gun manufacturer's fault, but i think there needs to be something done to lower that number, regardless of whether the lowering comes from the homicide or suicide part.
#348 to #347
-
twofreegerbils (09/17/2014) [-] Ok, that's a very noble sounding thing to say, but lets look at the implications.
First of all, you have to realize one, very important fact: Any gun of any caliber can kill anyone instantly. Even a single-shot .22 can instantly end your life if you put it in your mouth. Even a .410 shotgun can kill you instantly. Hell, there are some air rifles that are plenty lethal.
So... With that in mind, how do you plan on stopping people from killing themselves with guns? Banning so-called "assault weapons" won't do anything, because then the suicidal person can just use a different gun. Ban assault weapons, pistols, semi-automatic rifles, any rifle larger than .22 caliber, ban everything EXCEPT a single shot .22 caliber rifle and a suicidal person could still use it to kill himself.
So what's your solution? Ban private ownership of guns entirely? Because this is an all or nothing deal. If you want to stop gun suicides with a ban, then you've got to go balls deep. You can't half-ass it. You would have to enact a 100% ban on private ownership of guns of any category, effective immediately.
But again: This is all irrelevant! Suicide statistics are irrelevant in the scope of gun control. If you're concerned about the 40,000 people who kill themselves every year, then you should worry about their mental health, not about whatever law you can pass that will child-proof their life. That's essentially what we would be doing. Child-proofing our lives because we don't want to be responsible or accountable. Treat adults like adults. Encourage them to not kill themselves but don't lock them in a padded room with a straightjacket.
People who kill themselves with guns aren't part of America's "gun problem", they're part of our suicide problem. There is no overlap, unless you plan to completely ban guns. And after that, we can make sharp corners illegal and child safety locks mandatory.
First of all, you have to realize one, very important fact: Any gun of any caliber can kill anyone instantly. Even a single-shot .22 can instantly end your life if you put it in your mouth. Even a .410 shotgun can kill you instantly. Hell, there are some air rifles that are plenty lethal.
So... With that in mind, how do you plan on stopping people from killing themselves with guns? Banning so-called "assault weapons" won't do anything, because then the suicidal person can just use a different gun. Ban assault weapons, pistols, semi-automatic rifles, any rifle larger than .22 caliber, ban everything EXCEPT a single shot .22 caliber rifle and a suicidal person could still use it to kill himself.
So what's your solution? Ban private ownership of guns entirely? Because this is an all or nothing deal. If you want to stop gun suicides with a ban, then you've got to go balls deep. You can't half-ass it. You would have to enact a 100% ban on private ownership of guns of any category, effective immediately.
But again: This is all irrelevant! Suicide statistics are irrelevant in the scope of gun control. If you're concerned about the 40,000 people who kill themselves every year, then you should worry about their mental health, not about whatever law you can pass that will child-proof their life. That's essentially what we would be doing. Child-proofing our lives because we don't want to be responsible or accountable. Treat adults like adults. Encourage them to not kill themselves but don't lock them in a padded room with a straightjacket.
People who kill themselves with guns aren't part of America's "gun problem", they're part of our suicide problem. There is no overlap, unless you plan to completely ban guns. And after that, we can make sharp corners illegal and child safety locks mandatory.
#350 to #348
-
chilloutdude ONLINE (09/17/2014) [-] Well I'm about 95% sure you didn't even read my comment, and even if I were trying to change your mind about something, I can see you think you're right about everything anyway, so have a nice rest of your day.
#12 to #11
-
twofreegerbils (09/16/2014) [-] I never said it was low or high, I just said it wasn't 14,000, faggot ******* anon.
#37 to #12
-
themajesticsnail (09/16/2014) [-] So, taking out the suicides, you get 11,000, and that's only 78% the amount of victims of terrorism! Great job.
I'm not anti guns, tho
I'm not anti guns, tho
#39 to #37
-
twofreegerbils (09/16/2014) [-] Out of a country with a population of 314 million, compared to terrorist organizations of what size??
#19 to #11
-
keitheespieces ONLINE (09/16/2014) [-] guess who's lumped into that sum of 11,000. I'll give you a hint: a lot of those who put the other names on the list. They list all firearm homicide, including police and self defense. Hell, adam lanza is on the list. Matter of fact on a site that lists everyone killed since Sandy, he's listed right after the 26 he killed.
