Not all blacks are lazy stupid thugs & savages as you again wrongly suggest I say. Like any other demographic it probably on 5-8 % that put your demographic is such bad light.

Fox news - The news itself is fail and balanced. The rest is opinion journalism. Unlike MSNBS which does not even have a news time slot.

You statement
"When all the dimwitted unapologetic willfully ignorant old racist folks like you finally kick the bucket.. then we can move on." is not true. Again your are so biased against me and whites - I have said is past post that things should get better as the older generations pass and times move on.

As for the rest of your dribble. Its just that dribble in which you are trying to justify your race failures to assimilate into society as being caused by the white man. I would more correctly say that you race problems are caused more by government policies.


The media just reflects society and use it to manipulate society fore its own ratings.
Top local news is almost always hard crimes and sadly it appears that your race is most in this segment. All for ratings at your race expense.

Media also users it to manipulate society for sway public opinion. Bruce Jenner is being pushed a a great thing. It not really a great thing abut being pushed as such.

Stay tuned for next week's edition: Elders React to - Cell Phones!

"Well golly-gee willikers. What's this new fangled contraption?

In MY day, we only had two cups and a string"


But seriously, we're not that far removed from the past that a group of teenagers would lack knowledge or comprehension of friggin' Enencyclopedias.

This series jumped the shark years ago with the whole: X Demographic - Reacts!

It would certainly be a formative experience that they share in common.

Could be training, where the list of suspicious attributes (such as what clothes someone wears) are more likely to be worn by a particular culture (and since culture broadly tracks race, it would also then have a racial bias).

Could be that they are taught self reinforcing statistics. Something like : Blacks are more often convicted of crimes. So then the police more often expect blacks to be up to crimes, so they watch them more carefully - which in turn leads to more caught crimes in that population than in populations not watched so closely - which reinforces the statistic and repeats the cycle.

Could also be a social bias where the kinds of black people who go into the police force are more likely to have life experience that biased them against their own people. Some function or demographics, and location, etc.

Could also be pop culture bias. 'Black pop media culture' spent the last decade+ going on and on about 'gangsa this and gangsta that', etc. Since I haven't seen many 'gangsta cops' (lol), I wouldn't be surprised if the black cop population was culturally biased against the people that dress to mimic said media (which would more often be black people than white people)

In any case, I can theorize all I want, but not knowing the truth, it's all just guesswork.

-scheherazade

I have to admit, this kind of thinking is alien to me.

Maybe it's because I don't live in the US, maybe it's because I'm a middle-class, middle-aged, straight, white dude, but I simply don't have this kind of adversarial relationship with cops.

Even in the last few times I was in the US, every interaction I've had with police was courteous and respectful, even when I was in the wrong (like when I was pulled over for speeding).

Same in NZ. I don't have many official interactions with cops, a few random alcohol breath tests, pulled over once for speeding, but again they've always been fine.

Now, I absolutely would take this line if I encountered a situation like the one portrayed here, but as a general rule, I don't think most cops are out to get me, and again, maybe that's just because I'm not their target demographic.

The issue for you is not "change", but that society would "capitulate" for "such an insignificant demographic group" of "less than 4% of the population", correct?

You cited this Gallup poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/182837/estimated-780-000-americans-sex-marriages.aspx?utm_source=SAME_SEX_RELATIONS&utm_medium=topic&utm_campaign=tiles) of how many Americans were in same sex marriages.

Another Gallup poll shows the historical trend of religious self-identification in America from 1948 to 2014: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1690/religion.aspx

In 1948, the proportion of respondents who self-identify as either Protestant, Roman Catholic, or Jewish, is 95%. ~5% said "None" or didn't answer (less than 0.5% said "Other").

In following years, they tracked more detailed responses and grouped some as "Christian (nonspecific)" and Mormon, and changed the Roman Catholic grouping to just Catholic.

In 2014, those who specified a religion (which is everyone except those who said their religion was "None" or didn't answer) represented 80%.

The full statistics are in that link -- these two years are endpoints in the polls, but not outliers.

Thus, over 66 years Americans who identified as religious (not all of whom follow the Bible, but most do so I'll be generous to you) lost 15 percentage points. That's a rate of 0.227272 percentage points per year.

If Americans keep leaving religion behind at this same rate, in 2348 all religious people will represent less than 4% of the population.

Then we get to trample your rights, right Bob?

"Why should any society capitulate for such an insignificant demographic group?

Gays make up less then 4% of population. "

We are talking about letting two people marry each other, in what way exactly is this capitulation?

The gun fondling nutters in the NRA make up about 1% of the population. Personally, I think their obsession with guns is rather perverse and more than a little creepy. Why cant we just take away their right to bear arms? They are just 1%! why should they have the same rights as other people?

Mormons are like less than 4% too, Take away their freedom of religion! No need to give them the same rights as catholics?

The "change" is not the issue for me. Its the tail wagging the dog that I am asking about.


Why should any society capitulate for such an insignificant demographic group?

Gays make up less then 4% of population.

And for gay marriage the % is even less than 1% The question really becomes Why should 1% demographic force the 99% to change?

IF the word gay is clouding you thoughts change it ti KKK, NAMBLA, Black supremacist or any another insignificant demographic group...



To answer you question the very definition of marriage would change.

Instead of you BS just answer the simple question.

Why should any society capitulate for such an insignificant demographic group?

Gays make up less then 4% of population.

And for gay marriage the % is even less than 1% The question really becomes Why should 1% demographic force the 99% to change?

Oh FFS, are you really THAT stupid?

Rights are rights. They apply to everyone equally, regardless of how big or small your demographic is.

No-one is asking you to change. You don't want to have a gay marriage? Don't marry a gay guy.

Otherwise, it has fucking nothing to do with you, so stop trying to ruin it for the people who it does matter to.

Anyway, as I said to shiny, your opinion is irrelevant. SSM is here and it's only going to become more widely accepted, and there isn't a goddamn thing you can do about it.

You've already lost. Enjoy being on the wrong side of history.

Again another straw man answer.

Just answer the question at hand.

Why should any society capitulate for such an insignificant demographic group?

Gays make up less then 4% of population.

And for gay marriage the % is even less than 1%
The question really becomes Why should 1% demographic force the 99% to change?

After months offline I just wanted some cat videos and now this...

You know, Bob, I think you are right. I may not be a US citizen but I think there should be an international law, enforced by the UN.
As a species we can not allow morally bankrupt people to define what marriage should be, especially if that definition is ethically questionable and radically diverging from what the Bible, Torah or Quran describe.
Not only are we subjected to this bizarre propaganda of how normal this sickening behaviour is, this agenda is being sold to children as well. Even if we ignore the risk factors and possible fallout from this dangerous interaction with our youth, I think we can't deny that letting somebody that unstable adopt children isn't the best of ideas.
As you point out, this minority has a strong grasp on the media and an even stronger grip around the neck of political systems around the globe. Even our economy isn't safe of their influence which everyone can see everytime they hurt american businesses with their boycotts. Like disgusting, entitled children, they throw tantrums everytime they don't get their will, no mattere what the cost.
You're right, mankind shouldn't capitulate to their demands. I say annul their existing marriages or domestic partnerships and make it illegal for those people to marry. Worldwide.
According to Wikipedia (yes, I know, Wikipedia) there are 7.2 billion humans on earth and the GOP has around 30 million members. That's only 0.4% of the world population. You're right. Why should any society capitulate for such an insignificant demographic group? Why should we allow republicans to marry or recognize their marriages as legally binding? Nobody needs them to procreate.
Having said that, as far as I'm concerned, George W. Bush is a bastard, even by westerosi standards.

Racist, bigot and homophobic have nothing to do with this argument, Yet another straw man argument from the left.

The question really becomes Why should 1% demographic force the 99% to change its thinking?



http://www.gallup.com/poll/182837/estimated-780-000-americans-sex-marriages.aspx?utm_source=SAME_SEX_RELATIONS&utm_medium=topic&utm_campaign=tiles

Approximately 0.3% of adults in the U.S. are married to a same-sex spouse, and another 0.5% identify as being in a same-sex domestic partnership

Why should any society capitulate for such an insignificant demographic group?

Statically speaking Gays are not even on the radar. Gays make up less then 4% of population. Just because gays have a larger demographic in media and hence have a greater opportunity promote their cause still does not change that fact that they are insignificant in the eyes of society.

And WE have decided that gay marriage is wrong and will not be tolerated.

NAMBLA probably has a bigger demographic. Either way should they be recognized?

What brand of racism? Well, thanks to the amazing technology of the sift, let's do a little search..... oh look.
"Slavery is irrelevant to the plight of the black man today."

"If Blacks did not commit more crimes than other groups then women would not be clutching their purses and other demographic groups would not be as afraid."

"Your right but in Zimmerman neighborhood there have been break in by young black men. Hence young black thiefs' set the precedent for Martin to be followed." Hey, crap grammar into the bargain too!

"Funny how you don't hear jack what Black pastors protest against GAY marriage" Racism and homophobia.... bonus!

"And you wonder why blacks are still call the n word."

No, you're a fucking beacon of racial harmony and enlightenment.

You're goddamn right I'm angry. Being angry is the correct response to this. And no, I don't need any "anger management" bullshit, because I control my anger and channel it into doing useful things.

I think the problem is ultimately a political one.

There are absolutely social issues in Islam (similar to every religion, but marginally more repressive), but the terrorist angle is there because of geography. Most of the adherents to Islam live in the third world and yeah, they absolutely have genuine, legitimate grievances with the west. Not because we're secular godless infidels, but because of the way we've exploited people.

And these people are exploited by their religious leaders.

Look at Northern Ireland. You had Catholics on one side and Protestants on the other, but because both were Christians, it was framed as a political struggle. If the republicans had been druids or something, then it would be recast as a religious issue.

If most Christians were living in the third world, we'd be looking at the exact same problem. The only reason Christianity is any less problematic than Islam is because it has had to live in an affluent education demographic who increasingly won't put up with it's original treatment of women, homosexuals, etc.

In poorer areas, (southern US, South America, parts of Africa) Christianity is indistinguishable from the Taliban.