cacman wrote:It was reported by CNN yesterday morning, at the same time the CNN reporter suggested that tougher minimum sentences would target blacks. The targetting statement alone is what lead to starting the discussion to begin with.
I read nothing in cnn about any suspect being identified at all. No witness statements mentioned at all. Just because an article chooses to pair two concepts doesn't generate a fact.
Quote:
If you're not a liberal, then you must be a politician in office as you've flipped-flopped on gun control issues. In previous discussions you've debated against me for tougher gun control. So to say you don't care is a crock of sh|t and a lie. Unless you just argue to argue and don't have the backbone to take a real stand.
I have never advocated gun control. find a single post. In fact, I likely am more willing to have looser gun control than you. I'd be ok with every person being allowed to buy as much heavy artillery, nuclear weaponry, whatever that they can afford. It's no skin off my back and will make for a very interesting news cycle.
Quote:
You are the only one pushing the "stats' angle. This discussion was started purely on the facts as reported on a live news broadcast yesterday morning. I never said other avenues should not be investigated in regards to the 7yr old's death. Had the story been headlined as a white hate crime before being investigated like the church fires where , I would have protested just the same and consistently. In this case, there is little collaborating evidence to prove a white hate crime and is further supported by your 'stats'. Investigations should go both ways. But the news coverage of the church fires automatically presumed a hate crime was involved BEFORE any evidence supported it. The "ridiculous' scenarios put forth by me and others in the end turned out to be true in part. The is not the case in regards to this particular shooting.
I am pushing the stats angle. You simply aren't understanding the point. Flip your current thinking. This is real simple:
Black church arson. Most statistically likely - white suspect. Most bandied about possibilities on cbid? - anything but a white suspect.
Black kid shot in driveby. Most statistically likely - black suspect. Most bandied about possibilities on cbid - black suspect.
I'm not disagreeing with any assumptions you've made with the 7yo (except for a sarcastic "why hasn't anyone checked to see if a white cop was around and found him threatening"). My point is you aren't applying the same standards for when a black church gets torched.
Quote:
If you would have done your research before blasting me for rallying against the term "black church' you would understand the historical context. In a nut-shell, black churches started as a result of slavery. If there is no slavery then there is no need for the segregation or 'black church', just like there's no need to fly the confederate flag. There should not be any segregation within the house of God - no white, no black, but all equal. To further promote such segregation only promotes racism. Saying 'I've never cared because it's religion and a self selecting segregation." is a complete cop-out. If the white community was "self-selecting segregation" people would be screaming.
You can call it a "church predominantly attended by blacks" then if you want. black church is shorter. Did it occur to you that this can simply be that people go to church in their neighborhood, and if a neighborhood is mainly black, the congregation will be mainly black? I honestly don't care what it's called. I'm simply trying to identify it. The fact that the congregation is black seems to only matter to the people in the church, and the person trying to burn it down. As I am neither, I am open to suggestions for naming it something.