So Boerd said
Also, since you've established blacks commit more severe crimes on average per person than whites

I never established this; that was actually you harping on about murders and whatnot as if that nullified the fact that whites commit more crimes of just about every other category when compared to every other racial group in this country. Originally, I was going to get into the over-policing of black and Hispanic neighborhoods and how this connects to the over-representation of minority persons in the justice system, but then you would've started whining about sources without citing your own material to support the outlandish opinions and 'facts' that you've been spouting for the past page or so. This looks like you desperately trying to comb for a new front from which to continue this ring-about argument from.

So Boerd said
Then why did Obama beat Clinton? For a less controversial example, O.J's acquittal in spite of DNA.

Obama probably beat Clinton because he sold a better proposal to the American public.

It was also a very close race from what I've heard and read. Though, maybe she lost because every single person that voted for Obama was a white apologist and a sexist pig that couldn't stand to have a filthy woman in office.

OJ was fined 33.5 million dollars and is now serving time in jail for some crime he committed a few years ago. And everyone knew he did it. Though, he was probably let off the hook because he's wealthy. Wealthy people in America get away with all sorts of mishaps and crimes. Bribes and whatnot. You know the drill.

So Boerd said
Trip post. Supposing I am the racist justice system, wouldn't I want minorities to suffer more? Since most violent crime is along racial lines, wouldn't I give minority gangbangers and wife beaters light sentences so they can go back to killing each other, but give white killers and abusers heavy sentences?

This makes zero sense. Do you even read what you type before you hit the "Submit Post" button?

Surely someone wise and gifted as you are would be able to multiply the black crime numbers in your own source (FBI souce) by around 6 (85%/15%) to see that blacks per person commit far more serious crimes, which explains longer average sentences. Now, if you'd like to start providing sources for tougher sentences for first time offenders?

As for the racist justice system, let me give you an old-fashioned proof.

Premise 1: Racism means wanting to inflict the maximum suffering on minorities feasible. The American justice system is racist.
Premise 2: Black-on-black crime and white-on-white is more common than black-on-white or vice versa.
Premise 3: Sending a criminal to jail precludes or severely inhibits them from committing crime.
Premise 4: The justice system gives black violent offenders stiffer sentences than white.
Premise 5: Multiple people being murdered or violently assaulted is worse than one going to jail.

Contention 1: The racist justice system will give lighter sentences to blacks who murder blacks than whites who murder whites so they may murder more blacks. (Premises 1, 2, 3, and 5)

Contention 1 stands at odds with Premise 4, therefore one premise in contention 1 or Premise 4 is false by contradiction. As premise 4 is allegedly empirically validated by Lum, one premise in contention 1 is false. Which, Lum?

So Boerd said
Surely someone wise and gifted as you are would be able to multiply the black crime numbers in your own source (FBI souce) by around 6 (85%/15%) to see that blacks per person commit far more serious crimes, which explains longer average sentences. Now, if you'd like to start providing sources for tougher sentences for first time offenders?As for the racist justice system, let me give you an old-fashioned proof.Premise 1: Racism means wanting to inflict the maximum suffering on minorities feasible. The American justice system is racist.Premise 2: Black-on-black crime and white-on-white is more common than black-on-white or vice versa.Premise 3: Sending a criminal to jail precludes or severely inhibits them from committing crime.Premise 4: The justice system gives black violent offenders stiffer sentences than white.Premise 5: Multiple people being murdered or violently assaulted is worse than one going to jail.Contention 1: The racist justice system will give lighter sentences to blacks who murder blacks than whites who murder whites so they may murder more blacks. (Premises 1, 2, 3, and 5)Contention 1 stands at odds with Premise 4, therefore one premise in contention 1 or Premise 4 is false by contradiction. As premise 4 is allegedly empirically validated by Lum, one premise in contention 1 is false. Which, Lum?

You act as if your contention is somehow at all logical and befitting of the premises, and thereby some kind of law that has to be fulfilled by every single premise in order for any of them to be correct. I don't even know what you're trying to argue beyond to say that what Asta is saying does not coincide with YOUR OWN idea of the justice system.

Robeatics said
You act as if your contention is somehow at all logical and befitting of the premises, and thereby some kind of law that has to be fulfilled by every single premise in order for any of them to be correct. I don't even know what you're trying to argue beyond to say that what Asta is saying does not coincide with YOUR OWN idea of the justice system.

How do the premises I stated not entail the conclusion?

And, I outright stated the premises may be false, but one must be or premise 4 must be.

So Boerd said
How do the premises I stated not entail the conclusion?And, I outright stated the premises may be false, but one must be or premise 4 must be.

I wasn't objecting to the premises and the possibility of them being false, I was objecting to the contention and how it could not be the determiner of whether or not those premises are false. Look, does this really matter anyways? On a different platform I may encourage this debate but it's kind of melting down into just a shouting match. There are some who genuinely care about the issues and others who just want to be right, and it's not a good, constructive combination. I hate to be the one to tell people to calm down when it comes to important, emotional issues to discuss such as this but I can see this thread becoming like the Ferguson one very quickly. Regardless, this thread was started because people wanted to discuss and debate the video in first post and the possible interpretations. Nothing to do with what has happened now. If you really, really want to argue, either get back to the topic at hand or go to a separate thread.

By definition, if the conclusion logically follows the premises and the conclusion is as you say false, a premise must be false.

LOL man the casual racism throughout this thread is absolutely thrilling. the rules that deal with banning racism on this board cant be properly dealt with since i assume the entire moderation staff is white. just like the majority of posters here, mainly the ones bouncing back with "but m-muh white people, we're discriminated against too!" towards ANYTHING having to do with people of color. So Boerd seems stuck on either stormfront or /pol/

code gary said
LOL man the casual racism throughout this thread is absolutely thrilling. the rules that deal with banning racism on this board cant be properly dealt with since i assume the entire moderation staff is white. just like the majority of posters here, mainly the ones bouncing back with "but m-muh white people, we're discriminated against too!" towards ANYTHING having to do with people of color. So Boerd seems stuck on either stormfront or /pol/

The facts cannot be offensive nor hurt your feelings. I used the source that Lum, who is black, cited, to derive conclusions about the violent crime and recidivism rate among blacks and how that would impact their higher prison population. The way to solve racism is not to silence those who disagree about its extent. Using coercion rather than reason weakens your case.