They told me to stir the pot, so here we go...
Great Idea!
Side Score: 6
|
 |
What you talkin bout, Willis?
Side Score: 6
|
|
|
|
|
4
points
2
points
1
point
Literally, you are correct, although the same would apply to removing any group of persons. However, since when is genocide a feasible, moral means of crime reduction? Just because there would be some benefit to such an atrocity doesn't make said atrocity a worthwhile pursuit. Side: What you talkin bout, Willis?
|
1
point
What you are saying is that the ends justifies the means. I agree that there is a greater breakdown in Black families with missing fathers, crime, etc. but the answer is not getting rid of the burdens. That is the answer from Democrats when they support no restriction abortions of viable babies for any reason. They call these babies burdens on mothers, burdens on society, so we should just allow them to be killed. The answer to both problem is not killing the burdens, it is a moral problem that began when the Left started separating God from our public. Did you know that even during slavery and after slavery, Black families were strong in their faith and had strong family ties. That all changed as our culture started separating God from our public lands. When a nations moral foundation is censored, we are seeing the results. Welfare roles flooded with unwed mothers, a million abortions per year, gangs, crime, etc. etc. 72% of black children have no father at home. THERE IS THE PROBLEM IN NUTSHELL! It's a moral issue, not a deportation of Black people issue. Side: What you talkin bout, Willis?
Though black people account for a large percentage of crime, it is a relatively small percentage of black people who are responsible. Removing black people altogether means removing mostly innocent people based on nothing more than the group you have ascribed them to. The problems this would create for this country would far outweigh any benefit of catching a few criminals in the process. It would mean we are, in fact, a totalitarian nation. After black people, whose next? What group is the next "problem group"? Maybe it's your group. Secondly, the notion that removing black people is a solution fails to recognize that the problem of black crime is not a problem of pigmentation. Black people don't commit a higher percentage of crime because of higher melanin content. There is a culture of violence that accompanies the culture of poverty prevalent in inner cities. Most crime is an issue for the poor, and more black people are poor. By removing them, the non-black poor demographic that follows will slowly succumb to gang violence as new groups vie for drug turf. You think crack heads are more violent than meth heads just because meth is a dirty "white" drug? They aren't. You think motorcycle gangs a more savory bunch than street gangs? They aren't, they simply aren't as close together. The culture that creates the problems of the black community would persist in other violent sub-cultures and would fill in the vacuum left behind in a newly minted totalitarian nation. Group after group would be removed until there is nothing left for the economy or the culture but to invade Poland (so to speak). And we are all worse off. Side: What you talkin bout, Willis?
Hello B: From MY perspective, it's the WHITE people who commit the majority of violent crimes - and they're committed AGAINST black people. The drug war, for example, IS a violent crime against black people.. Voter ID IS a crime against black people. I could go on and on, but you get where I'm coming from, doncha?? Go ahead, call me a racist.. But the facts speak for themselves. excon Side: What you talkin bout, Willis?
The facts do speak for themselves. You have literally listed no facts in support of your opinion. Laws are not simultaneously crimes in the legal sense. Nor are laws against drug crimes or for ID's violent. I will concede that you are a bit racist to assume that drugs are necessarily linked to race or that black people have some kind of problem with ID's. Side: Great Idea!
|
