The Truth About Rape in the U.S

[Guest]

So the moral of this long and tedious thread is ALL WOMEN should be very cautious when dealing with black men.

Very well. i suppose our fundamental disagreement has its roots in the interpretation of the numbers themselves. I believe that women should only be more wary of certain groups of men if the stats show that the probability of those groups raping them is higher than others.

You believe that, since blacks raped more white women than black ones, and that whites raped no black women at all, that whites should therefore be more wary of black men, despite the fact that the probability of them getting raped by a white man is in fact higher.

Two different interpretations, I suppose. I do not see too much in the way of falsehood within my own, although I understand your point.

 

[Guest]

The guy has no argument, just an annoying familiarity with the copy and
paste clipboard feature of Windows. He acts like he's responding to a post,
when in fact, he's just reiterating his argument and not acknowledging your
point at all. Tiresome, isn't it?

I will have to beg to differ. To begin, i have not copied and pasted a whole lot here. If you're trying to discredit me, then that was in fact a rather poor way of doing so.

Furthermore, I've already acknowledged more than one point in this thread. I've said, numerous times, again and again, that I accept the fact that the ratio of black on white crime vs white on black crime is astonishingly disparate, and that is a fact that cannot be avoided.

What we are disagreeing on is the interpretation of this statistic. The fact that i disagree with you does not mean I 'do not have an argument". It means that i simply have an argument that is contrary to your own. Intellectual disagreement is not uncommon-judging from what you are saying now and from what I have heard of you in the past, disagreement on an opponent's part means that they have no argument.

That is not the case.

 

[Guest]

If I'm not mistaken, DOJ stats list Hispanic violators as white, but lists them as Hispanic when victims. So, it doesn't refute the argument being made by Triad, Pitbull, and others that black men rape more white women. Whites and Hispanics are in separate categories as victims of crimes.

Are you sure? I'd like to see evidence of this, actually. I had always been pretty sure that the DOJ simply blanketed hispanics as whites through and through when it came to all crime statistics.

 

[C Darwin]

Are you sure? I'd like to see evidence of
this, actually. I had always been pretty sure that the DOJ simply
blanketed hispanics as whites through and through when it came to
all crime statistics.

Chek it out for yourself.

Link

<a href="http://www.racismeantiblanc.bizland.com/005/06.htm" target="_blank">Better
Link, Download the pdfs on the bottom.</a>Edited by: C Darwin

 

[InfamousOne]

If I'm not mistaken, DOJ stats list Hispanic violators as white, but lists them as Hispanic when victims. So, it doesn't refute the argument being made by Triad, Pitbull, and others that black men rape more white women. Whites and Hispanics are in separate categories as victims of crimes.

Shogun is correct, Hispanics are treated as seperate when being attacked, but considered white when doing the attacking. Why is this set up this way? The only answer can be to obfuscate the truth from white americans.


Gohan: Your attitude is dangerous. You may not be a rapist, but your acceptance of thier behavior in the form of "it ain't me doin it" is deplorable. If you genuinely cared you would take back your community from the rapists, murderers and thieves that force you to live in fear. Your lack of care is what gives them strength.

 

[White Shogun]

I'm no math whiz, so I might be wrong. But my common sense tells me that if there are far fewer black men in this country than white men, but they commit even nearly the same number of rapes as white men, let alone MORE of them, whether their victims be white, black, Latino, Estonian, or Eskimo, then it is prudent, I say, to be wary. And armed.

As I understand it, black men are also more likely to attack women they do not know, whereas white men are more likely to attack women who know them personally. Again, no math whiz here or anything, but common sense says....

So, for those of us who aren't very good at math, doesn't this mean that blacks rape more white women per capita than white men? Edited by: White Shogun

 

[PitBull]

Intellectual disagreement? Interpretation? What, can't you read numbers or
plain english? What about this ridiculous state of affairs don't you
understand? You're just saying that black people have more to fear from
blacks than whites do? So what? Sure they do. This is a white board full of
white people. We talk about what mattters to us, not you. Obviously, the
numbers say that blacks are a huge threat to us, far far more than they
should be, and we pose almost no threat to you at all. How is this even an
arguable point?

Buddy, we are far better off without blacks than with them. All the statistics
say so. We're just passing along the news to those white people who have
been brainwashed otherwise. When they get the message and start
agreeing, no bogus "reinterpretation" of the statistics will matter.

 

[Guest]

Gohan: Your attitude is dangerous. You may not be a rapist, but your acceptance of thier behavior in the form of "it ain't me doin it" is deplorable.

I'm afraid i do not understand your insinuation. I have never once accepted this behavior, nor will I ever. Our disagreement lies with the interpretation of the statistics and what they mean.

The fact that i disagree with your interpretation does not mean I accept such behavior. i have already made it quite clear(rather repeatedly, I must say) that the ratio of black on white vs. white on black crime is incredibly disparate and most definitely abhorrent. That is not acceptable.

However, when it comes to the interpretation of these statistics, I don't believe they are condusive to your insinuation. They simply don't provide enough support for it.
Therein is the difference in our views.

If you genuinely cared you would take back your community from the rapists, murderers and thieves that force you to live in fear. Your lack of care is what gives them strength.

So, because I disagree with your interpretation of these statistics, I don't care?

Here is how much i "care":

http://www.blackplanet.com/forums/thread.html?comment_form_s ubmit=1&forum_id=127&thread_id=53811&message_ids=&p=19&colle ction_id=57811&ordering=oldest+first


A long URL, but bare with me. It was a debate on black planet about Don Imus-I am user "DanteXavier".
Just follow the debate. Go ahead-get an idea of what I think before you decide I "don't care".

Here is even more. For this site, you have to sign in to view the forums-so, i simply created a dummy account for you to view it.

User name is caste23, password is caste.

one you signed in, take a look at these discussions(paste the URLs into your signed in browser):

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120586/board/thread/72018607?d= 72222271&p=1#72222271

This one is about rap and the black community. i think its bad; the opponent thinks it a-ok.

Next:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120586/board/thread/71612697?d= 71755986&p=2#71755986

This one is about Don Imus again.

This one is about affirmative action:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120586/board/thread/69272528?d= 69778812&p=2#69778812

In each thread, just go in and follow the discussions. You'll figure out how much I "care".

The issue is not about me caring about what's going on in black communities. Oh, trust me, i care, and I am opinionated about in such a way that it puts me in opposition to about 80% of the black community in America.

However, when it comes to these statistics, I disagree with your base interpretation of it. You believe that they should mean that whites should be more wary of blacks than other whites. i believe thatsuch a view should only be adopted if blacks were to be the majority of white attackers. As it turns out, they are not-whites are.

Personally, i don't believe that warrants more vigilence towards one side. I believe that warrants equal vigilence towards both. It doesn't seem logical given these facts to tell people to look at blacks mores so than whites, especially when all the stats show that whites are the more likely attackers of whites.
My holding that view does not imply that i somehow "do not care". it implies that I have a different(and in my opinion, quite valid) interpretation of this when compared to yourself. That doesn't mean i think the rape is a-ok: it means I think that there should not be disproportionate vigilence with regards to black rapists vs. white rapists given the information I've already shown in this thread.

Both are equally pressing issues, and it doesn't seem quite correct to try and say that whites should be so much more wary of blacks than whites-that almost makes it sound as though whites are more likely to be attacked by a black person than a white one, and that is simply not the case.

 

[Guest]

I'm no math whiz, so I might be wrong. But my common sense tells me that if there are far fewer black men in this country than white men, but they commit even nearly the same number of rapes as white men, let alone MORE of them, whether their victims be white, black, Latino, Estonian, or Eskimo, then it is prudent, I say, to be wary. And armed.

You're forgetting about the victims. My analysis is coming from the standpoint of the victims viewing the demography of the rapists.
For example-whites are raped by blacks far more commonly than blacks rape whites. But according to the statistics, whites are more likely to be raped by other whites than by blacks.
What does that mean? I'm not saying "don't be wary". I never said that. What I've been challenging is the notion that people should, with these facts in mind, place a disparate amount of caution towards blacks when compared to whites in this regard.

Why should they do that when blacks are not even the most likely rapists? Shouldn't equal vigilence be the best option?

As I understand it, black men are also more likely to attack women they do not know, whereas white men are more likely to attack women who know them personally. Again, no math whiz here or anything, but common sense says...

...Wait a second...hasn't it already been established that the vast majority of rape victims(including the whites ones, 33% of which were raped by blacks according to the stats) have actually known their rapist?

So, for those of us who aren't very good at math, doesn't this mean that blacks rape more white women per capita than white men?

It is also fact that the majority of white women are raped by...white men. White women are 11% more likely to be raped by white men than by black ones.

Thus, from the perspective of the victim, would it not be more prudent to place equal amounts of caution on both sides, rather than putting more of it on the other? If the stats all show that you're more likely to be raped by a white person than by a black one, why should you then put more emphasis on the black than the white?

That doesn't seem accurate, nor does it seem particularly wise.

 

[reclaimsocal]

If there are 100 men at a party, 12 are Black men, 80 are White men and 8 are "other" men and 10 women are raped, statistically, 5 of those rapes would have come from a pool of 12, or roughly 42% of the Blacks in attendance (granted I'm not taking into account repeat offenders for simplicity of explanation), the other 5 rapes would have come from a pool of 80, or roughly 6.3% of the Whites in attendance.

Okay smart guy, why wouldn't I want a white woman to know that for every Black man she encounters is 7 times more likely to rape her then every White man she encounters, strictly on a statistical basis. To try to argue percentages when the raw numbers aren't even close is flat out wrong. This also fails to account for the non-Whites who are classified as White (Arabs, Jews, Hispanics, South Asians, Turks & North Africans) which means that the number is likely far higher.



Edited by: reclaimsocal

 

[Guest]

Intellectual disagreement? Interpretation? What, can't you read numbers or
plain english?

...these are clearly concepts you do not understand. If that is the case, then don't bother concerning yourself with any sort of discussion with me. There would clearly be no point.

What about this ridiculous state of affairs don't you
understand? You're just saying that black people have more to fear from
blacks than whites do?

Yes...just as whites have more to fear from other whites than from blacks.

This is a white board full of
white people.

Thank you, I was already quite privy to that information.

We talk about what mattters to us, not you. Obviously, the
numbers say that blacks are a huge threat to us, far far more than they
should be, and we pose almost no threat to you at all. How is this even an
arguable point?

Because you're using interracial crime statistics to show that blacks are more likely to pose a threat to whites than whites are to blacks.

That part is correct.

The problem arises when you try to use that notion to attempt to establish that, somehow, whites should act as if they are more likely to be attacked by blacks than by another white, even though all the information says otherwise. When it comes to things like Murder, asault, etc, etc, all the information is clear: whites are more likely to get attacked by whites.

Given that fact, it isn't fair nor wise nor accurate to take blacks and try to make it seem like whites are somehow more likely to suffer from them.

Buddy, we are far better off without blacks than with them. All the statistics
say so.

No, actually, I disagree with that. Blacks have contributed quite a bit to this society in general.
That, and also your statistical interpretations aren't even completely correct.

PS: Buddy? Huh? I'm black. You're telling me that things would be better if I were gone, and then you want to call me buddy?

We're just passing along the news to those white people who have
been brainwashed otherwise.

Actually, brainwashing is not the main issue here.

Experience is.

When they get the message and start
agreeing, no bogus "reinterpretation" of the statistics will matter.

I know not what you speakof. I have not "reinterpreted" anything.

 

[Guest]

If there are 100 men at a party, 12 are Black men, 80 are White men and 8 are "other" men and 10 women are raped, statistically, 5 of those rapes would have come from a pool of 12, or roughly 42% of the Blacks in attendance (granted I'm not taking into account repeat offenders for simplicity of explanation), the other 5 rapes would have come from a pool of 80, or roughly 6.3% of the Whites in attendance.

33% of white women are raped by black men. Statistically, if 10 women were raped, 3 of them should have been raped by black men. 4 should have been raped by whites, and the rest should have been raped by the "other" men.

Okay smart guy, why wouldn't I want a white woman to know that for every Black man she encounters is 7 times more likely to rape her then every White man she encounters, strictly on a statistical basis. To try to argue percentages when the raw numbers aren't even close is flat out wrong. This also fails to account for the non-Whites who are classified as White (Arabs, Jews, Hispanics, South Asians, Turks & North Africans) which means that the number is likely far higher.

Jews, turks and north africans are caucasoids racially.

Hispanics definitely are not white.

Can you show proof that south asians are indeed classified as white? I have not heard that before.

In any case, yes, be sure to tell women that they are more likely, per capita to be raped by black men.
The thing is, you should also be sure to tell them that the probability of them being raped by a white man is 11% higher than a black one, and that in the end if they actually do end up getting raped, it is more likely to be by a white man.

You want to show them one important stat, yet ignore the other? Per capita statistics do not change the fact that white women are more likely to be raped by white men than by black ones. All they show is what i've already told you: black on white crime vs. white on black crime is extremely disproportionate.
Black on white crime(as i've admitted already several times) is disproportionate, but that does not mean you can rightfully imply that whites are more likely to be raped by blacks when the percentages show that whites are 11% more likely to be raped by other whites.

I am not telling you not to tell them about black crime. I am telling you not to try and make something seem like what it isn't. Whites are not more likely to be raped by blacks than they are to be by other whites. That is still a fact.
Edited by: Futuregohan30

 

[Guest]

Are you sure? I'd like to see evidence of
this, actually. I had always been pretty sure that the DOJ simply
blanketed hispanics as whites through and through when it came to
all crime statistics.

Chek it out for yourself.

Link

<a href="http://www.racismeantiblanc.bizland.com/005/06.htm" target="_blank">Better
Link, Download the pdfs on the bottom.</a>

Very well, I stand corrected. I'll review those links further later on.

 

[KG2422]

Gohan is full of bs. He'll probably be a journalist.

 

[Bart]

... we are far better off without blacks than with them.

You said it, Brother!!

 

[Guest]

Gohan is full of bs. He'll probably be a journalist.

...is that really all you have to say?

Very well then, I've said what I wanted to say and I'm confident I've put forth a valid point with regards to this issue. Might as well cut this conversation with you off here given the direction this thread is heading("you're full of bs", "we'd be better of without you negroes", etc, etc). I simply won't bother responding to you anymore, unless, of course, you would like to get serious and start talking.

PS: I don't enjoy writing. I'm good at it, but it is not something I'd like to make a profession. I want to be a pilot, not journalist.

Salutations.Edited by: Futuregohan30

 

[White Shogun]

Gohan,
You have agreed that:

black on white crime vs. white on black crime is extremely disproportionate.

What do you think is the reason for this?

If there are 12 blacks at a party, 80 whites, and 8 'other', and 10 rapes are committed, according to what you wrote 3 of those rapes would have been committed by blacks and 4 by whites.

Therefore, a woman at this party should rightly be more wary of any one of the individual black men at the party than any of the whites. Nine of the 12 blacks are not potential rapists, whereas there are 76 white men who are not potential rapists. Therefore, the odds show that she would be more likely to meet a black potential rapist than a white one, given those numbers (although in this example blacks are actually less likely to commit rape than men in the 'other' category.)

 

[PitBull]

He can't write well and he can't reason well. He obviously has little
understanding of statistics. The way he works is that he keeps ignoring
other members' postings and keeps reiterating his illogical, unreasoned, and
unenlightened arguments. He tries to wear people down and get the last
word. He's like a skipping record or CD. He will not listen to you. I don't
mind a debate, but this ain't one, that's for sure.

Anyone who would argue that white women are safer being around blacks
than whites is a fool and all the numbers say so. Hell, blacks aren't even
safer around their own. When you can't even rely on your own group for
some safety, what have you got? Nothing, that's what. That says it all right
there.

 

[InfamousOne]

He lists himself as 15 years old on the message boards on Blackplanet.net. I think he is intelligent enough to argue on that forum.I truly believe what we have here is denial from him about the telling nature of black crime. Perhaps because he can not accept that his people could be violent after all the crap society has told him about the wonderful black man.


What an interesting read Blackplanet.comwas. I lost count of the white devil comments, and how whites opress black people in this country constantly, holding them down in every aspect of thier lives.


Endless talk about slavery that none of them experienced.Did you know the UN council had a recent summit to discuss the rampant slavery going on right now in Africa? Perhaps I should list the link on BlackPlanet.net? I know they would all want to know immediately why they were never told of these atrocities by the mainstream media, right?


Do you really think you can be successful within society when you condone attitudes of coperation withwhites as being an "Uncle Tom" like mentioned on the Black Planet.net forums? The hypocrisy of it all is unbelieveable.Edited by: InfamousOne

 

[KG2422]

Gohan is full of bs. He'll probably be a journalist.

...is that really all you have to say?

Very well then, I've said what I wanted to say and I'm confident I've put forth a valid point with regards to this issue. Might as well cut this off here given the direction this thread is heading("you're full of bs", "we'd be better of without you negroes", etc, etc).

PS: I don't enjoy writing. I'm good at it, but it is not something I'd like to make a profession. I want to be a pilot, not journalist.

Salutations.

Yes, that was all I had to say. Your arguments are nonsense. As if you think anyone here would fall for that rubbish. To debate your silliness is a waste of time.

 

[Guest]

Gohan,
You have agreed that:

black on white crime vs. white on black crime is extremely disproportionate.

What do you think is the reason for this?

1. Numbers. Blacks are around 14% of the population now. When it comes to crime, it can be said that since there are so many whites apart from blacks, when blacks look to committ a crime they may be more likely to end up finding a white than another black person.

This does not, obviously, explain the whole problem. But it can be used as a partial reasoning.

2. Amerikkka. Many blacks have the idea that America is in itself a KKK organization. Whites have and still always do target blacks, and Amerikkka is the organization(government) that supports it. They started aids, ebola, malaria, etc, etc, in their reasoning, so why not "get them back"?

3. Get whitey, fight the power. Much of modern black culture emphasizes the struggle against the system, and with "whitey" being in control of the system, they supposedly see no issue when it comes to interracial crime. This is what makes a white male in an urban area such a tempting target-it is their chance to, supposedly, get back at "the system", and whites for all of their supposed 'conspiracies".

4. Victimology. Whites are supposedlhy responsible for all black problems, and therefore they should pay for them.

Therefore, a woman at this party should rightly be more wary of any one of the individual black men at the party than any of the whites. Nine of the 12 blacks are not potential rapists, whereas there are 76 white men who are not potential rapists.

However, the chance of their rapist being one o0f those whites is higher than the chance of it in fact being one of those blacks. Her victimizer is still more likely to be white than black.
You can continue to analyze from a per capita standpoint if you would like, but that does not change that fact. Per capita or not, a white victim can expect to be raped by a white more so than they can expect to be victimized by a black person.

Therefore, the odds show that she would be more likely to meet a black potential rapist than a white one, given those numbers (although in this example blacks are actually less likely to commit rape than men in the 'other' category.)

But in the end, white women can still expect their rapists to be, most likely, white.

 

[Guest]

Perhaps because he can not accept that his people could be violent after all the crap society has told him about the wonderful black man.

No, I've already accepted that rather repeatedly.

I simply disagree with your analysis. I'm not PC, I know what the problems are and what possible solutions for them could be.

[

Endless talk about slavery that none of them experienced. Did you know the UN council had a recent summit to discuss the rampant slavery going on right now in Africa? Perhaps I should list the link on BlackPlanet.net?

Give it a shot. A few of them will agree with your analysis. Most will have a response ready and waiting(not necessarily a good one).

Do you really think you can be successful within society when you condone attitudes of coperation with whites as being an  "Uncle Tom" like mentioned on the Black Planet.net forums? The hypocrisy of it all is unbelieveable.

I think that cooperation is a GOOD thing. Read my posts on that forum if you disagree. Cooperation is needed. I don't subscribe to victimology, "amerikkka", or any of the other daft philosophies put forth repeatedly there.

The fact is that when it comes to major issues, I end up on the opposing side. I don't see a problem with interracial marriage(according to many black women, that makes me "not a real man"). I don't support reparations(that puts me in contradiction with, maybe, about 70% of blacks) and I don't support AA(in its current form) either(that puts me in opposition to maybe 80% of blacks). I consider rap/gangsta culture to be one of the primary issues in the black community. needless tosay, most blacks will defend that culture as "not part of the problem".

It is these opinions that make me the "uncle tom". They've labelled me with that over there consistently, and I've gotten it enough in real life as well. I just get used to it, is all.
Of course, many blacks, as I've outlined earlier, just see whites as the constant oppressors-always scheming to come up with an evil plot to "keep the black man down".
This is why my opinions are in the minority. I suggest a degree of personal responsibility and many blacks are too quick to simply blame whites for every single issues they have.

 

[Guest]

He lists himself as 15 years old on the message boards on Blackplanet.net.

That is true, but I'm basically 16 now. There are only 3 weeks until my birthday.

 

[Kaptain]

But in the end, white women can still expect their rapists to be, most likely, white.

No, you're dead wrong even discounting population dynamics - which is ridiculous on its own. Whites are more likely to be raped by NON-WHITES. 40% is less than half, the other roughly 60% of rapes are commited by NON-WHITES. This is despite the fact that whites still make-up of about 70% of the population and yet 60% of rapes are commited by NON-WHITES (a minority of the population). If hispanics and blacks had an atrocity of this magnitude commited on them by another race, there would be non-stop riots.

 

[chris371]

But in the end, white women can still expect their rapists to be, most likely, white.

A ridiculous argument, as there are 6 whites for every black in the country.