• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Where does free speech end?

Clippy said:
I'm saying 85% of interracial violent crime is committed by blacks against whites. You disagree?
Click to expand...
First, yes. The number refers to white-black interracial crime, not all interracial crime.

More importantly, your actual claims, that this is due to integration, and that this is a significant concern in the context of violence generally, are not supported by these numbers. They are a racist fantasy.

Clippy said:
Can I refuse to sell my house to someone on the basis of race? Can I refuse to hire someone on the basis of race?
Click to expand...
That is a non sequitur.
 
I assume this was a response to my post above.

Clippy said:
Yes, that is one reason it is a failure. It should not be illegal for whites to create living conditions that make them safer from interracial crime. I think blacks running their own society would find ways to create safer conditions for themselves too. At least they would be able to discuss the problem honestly.
Click to expand...

Let's get down to the real question at hand here. Do you think black people are predisposed to violence as a result of their genetics? (As opposed to educational or economic causes.)
 
America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. -- The American President

Free speech should know no bounds, imvho.

But there are those that believe that speech is only free when it is expressing that which they agree with. Sad really.
 
Last edited:
KDLadage said:
America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. -- The American President

Free speech should know no bounds, imvho.

But there are those that believe that speech is only free when it is expressing that which they agree with. Sad really.
Click to expand...

I assume you mean aside from slander and the like.
 
KingMerv00 said:
I assume you mean aside from slander and the like.
Click to expand...

OK... movie-quote and hyperbole mode off. ;)

The expression of ideas should be unrestricted. I can make claims in that arena and I should not be restricted in such expressions.

When I am making claims -- good or bad -- about another entity and that entity has issues with what I have said, then we have an issue -- not of free speech, per se, but of the damage caused. This damage should be measured and compensated for -- assuming the claim was false. Making claims that are demonstratively true is exposure, not damage.

So yes. Indirectly, I can concede the point that slander and libel are restrictive of free speech in that a false claim that causes damage will need to be dealt with accordingly.
 
Last edited:
Clippy said:
I'm saying 85% of interracial violent crime is committed by blacks against whites. You disagree?
Click to expand...

And the paint-job is complete. How does it feel in that corner? You've taken an isolated statistic and tried to use it to prove that integration is to blame without a shred of evidence to support that assertion. Second, you didn't even bother to include the stats for all violent crime and compare that to the extremely narrow stat you cited. If there are an equal number of white-on-white crimes, does that mean integrating the Irish and Italians has been a failure? If you're trying to be honest and paint an accurate picture, you need to try a lot harder. Otherwise, you just sound like a racist. Go visit the BJS website and look at all the stats on violent crime. If we separated out all of the demographic info and did as you suggested (self-segregate from populations most likely to commit crime against us), we'd all be hermits. You are just plain wrong (or intentionally ignorant), no matter what you say or how you try to spin it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom