Ferengi Rules of Acquisition


Sounds like good old fashioned Yankee Trading to me.....
Kind of like Nineteenth century neocons?

You got it Cal , Chris was being very clever with that one a very intelligent insult

---

OK now lets look at some of the conclusions, coupled with other comments.

The number of murders done by blacks is way (on the high side) out of proportion to their share of the population.

That may be, but on other blacks, so this general held belief that blacks are more likely to attack whites than vice versa appears wrong.

That is correct, however I don't remember reading that previously in this discussion.

My personal theory: breakdown in the family unit. Yes, it is a disturbing trend across all communities, but it is painfully acute in the black community.

I have no figures for that either for the USA or the UK.

I do. http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/107-children-in-single-parent-families-by#detailed/1/any/false/868,867,133,38,35/10,168,9,12,1,13,185/432,431
Note that in blacks 2/3 are from single parent families, while 1/4 of white, non-Hispanic are.
Also note the datum http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/04/racial-disparities-criminal-justice_n_4045144.html 1 in 3 black males will go to prison (felony custodial sentence) in their lifetime. Also for our UK readers, remember USA custodial sentences are far longer than the UK.

Lack of a traditional 'father' in-house leaves the children at a disadvantage in respect for authority, a lack of understanding that actions have consequences. The mother has to then do 'double duty' and fill the father's role as well as her own. This leads to her being absent from home for long periods of time working 2 (or more) jobs so that she and her kids will have a roof over their heads and food to eat, and the other essentials. This means the kids all too frequently will not have enough supervision and motivation to do things like schoolwork.

Yes I would agree that if there is not a traditional male role model, then it is not the best environment to bring children up in. This where the grandparents need to step in if they can. But remember, that in many cases the mother has removed the children from an abusive environment, and being in a one parent family is actually better for them, than where they were.

Education came into this a bit later ....

The failure is in education. Young black males are not taught that they must stay with the children that they father and teach the child by being a good example. Really, is running out on mom, refusing to pay child support, and being a felon a good example? I'll be just like daddy!

Do you have any evidence that young black males are less taught about that than young white males? If not then that seems like an inbuilt prejudice coming out.

It would be the white privilege ideal that parents, see below, do teach their children that ideal, of course one big teaching method is by example, and 2/3 have the wrong example, see above.

This is a failure of the education system as a whole to understand what lessons must be taught, in addition to reading, riteing and rithmatic. I know California does a very good job at this with the ESL programs for Latin American immigrant children;

You have mixed up two separate issues there. It is not the job of a state education system to instil moral standards of behaviour and respect for the law into children, that is the job of the parents not the school. In the UK far too many parents drag the kids up until age 5 then hand them over to the schools and effectively wash their hands of them, with quite a predictable outcome 10 years later. I don't know about the USA.

You are accurately describing the USA, but add in a dose of single parent and long hours of substandard day care. If the parents refuse, then society must step in or accept the consequences.

Re: Grandparents. If they weren't able to raise their children to be successful, what makes you think they will do any better raising their grandchildren? Also you assume the grandparents are available, not working.

---

That may be, but on other blacks, so this general held belief that blacks are more likely to attack whites than vice versa appears wrong.

Let us examine this statements implications in the context of policing and institutional racism.

First it assumes that the levels of black crime and white crime are identical. MK's numbers say otherwise when corrected for population.

In the context of police and racial profiles it tends to say that police should not spend time looking at blacks. However that would include an extremely ugly assumption of white privilege; that the police exist to protect whites and not to protect blacks.

If the assumption is that police should protect all equally, then with MK's numbers they should spend more time in black areas as a higher fraction of blacks commit murder than whites, which suggests that racial profiling is a legitimate police policy.

Others will chime in with a chicken and egg example. However that does not provide a solution, as the police still must protect all equally, unless they believe that somehow the presence of police causes crime. (That would need justification!)

Chris, you didn't use the statement in the context I set it in, so I'm not saying this is you. Others have said or implied similar ideas in that context however, and I expect will do so again.

Last, if the police don't look at race, color blind, but assign patrol based on crime statistics which results in an uneven racial divide, it is racial profiling? Or it is a different chicken and egg problem.

---

Looks Like Charpentier is ACEing The B/W issue.

'cept

then society must step in or accept the consequences

Society does not Accept My Thoughts. Actions, if I Had Any, or Carried Out My Thoughts, also Would Not Be Accepted.

Thoughts Expressed in Forum, are Not What I Really Think. What I Think 'is' Much Worse. Or Better, Depending. heeeheeeheee

So, Society 'is' Left with One Big Mess.

'cause, People Do Not Do, and Do Not Want to Do, The Right Thing. And THE RIGHT THING 'is' Not Complicated. Very Simple Rules Not Followed Any More.

Yep.

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

Ferengi Rules of Acquisition

Sounds like good old fashioned Yankee Trading to me.....
Kind of like Nineteenth century neocons?

More like good old fashion Empire colonialism to me.

---

[/quote]

Old James

That may be, but on other blacks, so this general held belief that blacks are more likely to attack whites than vice versa appears wrong.

Let us examine this statements implications in the context of policing and institutional racism.

First it assumes that the levels of black crime and white crime are identical. MK's numbers say otherwise when corrected for population.

In the context of police and racial profiles it tends to say that police should not spend time looking at blacks. However that would include an extremely ugly assumption of white privilege; that the police exist to protect whites and not to protect blacks.

Not only is there an argument to be made for that, but many people believe the police are actually there to preserve the status quo and the ruling power structures. So essentially the wealthy elites.

If the assumption is that police should protect all equally, then with MK's numbers they should spend more time in black areas as a higher fraction of blacks commit murder than whites, which suggests that racial profiling is a legitimate police policy.

Others will chime in with a chicken and egg example. However that does not provide a solution, as the police still must protect all equally, unless they believe that somehow the presence of police causes crime. (That would need justification!)

I still suspect that there is an issue with the data at source. Considering how white people committing crime is not only less likely to be dealt with by the police, but white people that do commit crime are more likely to get away with it. Also, look at the types of crime, who does them and what the consequences are. Drug crime is more harshly punished/criminalised if you are black (white drug user, sent for treatment, black drug user, arrested). A white shoplifter will face different consequences than a black shoplifter (white shoplifter, sent away with a warning, black shop lifter, arrested) , and so on. This is going to skew the crime statistics, so you cannot necessarily trust that data.

Chris, you didn't use the statement in the context I set it in, so I'm not saying this is you. Others have said or implied similar ideas in that context however, and I expect will do so again.

Last, if the police don't look at race, color blind, but assign patrol based on crime statistics which results in an uneven racial divide, it is racial profiling? Or it is a different chicken and egg problem.

I think you are founding this on basic false assumptions.

There are also other false assumptions being made in this conversation that speak to certain prejudices.

eg.
*Black fathers are worse than white fathers
*Divorced or separated parents means that the father is absent and not involved.
*That a child without a father is likely to turn to crime (rather than the obvious reason that a very low minimum wage means there is no chance of a parent raising a child on the income from one job alone. Forcing the lone parent to work two jobs)
*That the absent father earns enough money to pay child support (again, low wages and the fact that there is a large income gap between black and white men)

Add to this other causes of "high crime" statistics, such as
*the privatisation of US prisons has led to a culture that incentivises prison time
* laws are not more likely to be enforced on black people leading to jail time (also in many US states, prison labour is being used as cheap labour leading to further incentives to have a large prison population, a form of slave labour through the back door)

---

Reality Internet Personality

Well, actually quite hard to imagine that first cop action even if he would think that the child holds real gun will be to shoot into the child... Really hard...

Been there - 10 Year old - Real Gun.

Decided not to shoot, and place MY LIFE at greater risk.

Ethical Decision. Not Legal Decision.

Question: Would my decision have been different if he was 14 - 16 - 18 - 25 years old?

Would YOUR decision be different?

What is the 'Cut off' age, if any?

You seem to have a been there done that story for every situation.

---

I do not fight fascists because I think I can win.
I fight them because they are fascists.
Chris Hedges

A riot is the language of the unheard. -Martin Luther King, Jr.

You seem to have a been there done that story for every situation.

Real Men have Done and Still Do.

Es99 Vs Charpenteir aka HuWoMan Skull Measuring/Sterilization Eugenics of 100-150 Years Ago Vs 21st Century Real World Reasoning.

Yep

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

That may be, but on other blacks, so this general held belief that blacks are more likely to attack whites than vice versa appears wrong.

Let us examine this statements implications in the context of policing and institutional racism.

First it assumes that the levels of black crime and white crime are identical. MK's numbers say otherwise when corrected for population.

In the context of police and racial profiles it tends to say that police should not spend time looking at blacks. However that would include an extremely ugly assumption of white privilege; that the police exist to protect whites and not to protect blacks.

Not only is there an argument to be made for that, but many people believe the police are actually there to preserve the status quo and the ruling power structures. So essentially the wealthy elites.

believe = assume? No surprise many people assume racism is the sole cause of everything.

What is the function of the police? To ensure order. Order preserves the government.

So are you advocating the withdrawal of police as a government function? Or are you advocating they should not be allowed to arrest black people?

Perhaps it is time for you to read up on the consent decree for the LAPD under the former chief, who now heads the NYPD. I suspect you will find lots of material.

If the assumption is that police should protect all equally, then with MK's numbers they should spend more time in black areas as a higher fraction of blacks commit murder than whites, which suggests that racial profiling is a legitimate police policy.

Others will chime in with a chicken and egg example. However that does not provide a solution, as the police still must protect all equally, unless they believe that somehow the presence of police causes crime. (That would need justification!)

I still suspect that there is an issue with the data at source. Considering how white people committing crime is not only less likely to be dealt with by the police, but white people that do commit crime are more likely to get away with it.

"Get away with" = not arrested? Now saying whites get away with crime needs some studies to back it up, not a handful of examples, but multi-year studies. However I don't think it is possible to get this data, because if the person who commits the crime is never found, you can not know the race of that person. Also how is it possible to get data on crimes that never are reported, such as a person smoking a joint at home? Or does the entire data set have to be assumed into existence?

Also, look at the types of crime, who does them and what the consequences are. Drug crime is more harshly punished/criminalised if you are black (white drug user, sent for treatment, black drug user, arrested). A white shoplifter will face different consequences than a black shoplifter (white shoplifter, sent away with a warning, black shop lifter, arrested) , and so on. This is going to skew the crime statistics, so you cannot necessarily trust that data.

The statistic was murder. Hard to ignore a dead body.

Chris, you didn't use the statement in the context I set it in, so I'm not saying this is you. Others have said or implied similar ideas in that context however, and I expect will do so again.

Last, if the police don't look at race, color blind, but assign patrol based on crime statistics which results in an uneven racial divide, it is racial profiling? Or it is a different chicken and egg problem.

I think you are founding this on basic false assumptions.

There are also other false assumptions being made in this conversation that speak to certain prejudices.

eg.
*Black fathers are worse than white fathers

Never said worse, said absent. Adjust your spectacles.

*Divorced or separated parents means that the father is absent and not involved.

If 1/3 are in prison .... also if you aren't living with the child, you can't be as involved as a parent who is living with the child. [The number of divorced that still live together is pretty small.]

*That the absent father earns enough money to pay child support (again, low wages and the fact that there is a large income gap between black and white men)

You obviously are being intentionally intellectually dishonest, you know that the amount of support varies with income.

---

Watched a interesting movie the other night it was a real eye opener and i learnt a few things about America it was called Gangs Of New York with Cameron Diaz and and Leonard Leonardo Dicaprio

It's based on real events , maybe the reason you have these problems is because of the base from where it all began .

---

No Clyde watch the movie again the gangs story line is a side story . It's well done not to offend you Americans but more to Educate you

---

No Clyde watch the movie again the gangs story line is a side story . It's well done not to offend you Americans but more to Educate you

Typical Non-American braggadocio.

Hasn't changed in the last five decades, since Living in Europe, Asia, and R&R in Australia.

Cameron Diaz = American
Leonardo Dicaprio = American

I haven't looked but most probably funded in America
Written in America
Produced in America

Fairly accurate as far as a entertainment movie goes not a doco

But what i expected Blind as a Bat

your right about not much has changed but it's a bit more than 50 yrs try 140+

And you guys are spose to be better educated then the rest of the world ppphhhheeeefffffff

---

Thank's Chris , it's a good movie even if you don't like Dicaprio and does make you wounder when will they learn the lessons of history .

---

"White people just don't like black people"

Full stop, period, end of story. If is really is as simple as that, why???

That's a strong statement to make but there is some troth to it .

In the movie they show how there was Blah Blah many fire brigades and they where underfunded and you where more likely to lose your household belongings if you where the nabour , as they would robb them and the house would burn down .
Corruption was rife because they had no money.
The same thing with the police forces .
you have to be able to have a safe society , if people have to struggle too hard that only breads crime and in America weapons are easy too easy to get and goes a long way to making the problem worse .
Americans also need to read there Bibles they love so much WE ARE ALL BROTHERS only our skin color is different
I would have though they would learn that having different jurisdictions payed by local councils of that jurisdictions would also cause a problem with everyone being trained differently paid differently Blah Blah

---

Looking at the statistics you have shown it is clear the biggest factor in violent crime is your gender. Maybe we shouldn't be calling a "black problem" but a "man problem"?

*steps back to see all the men get upset at being stereotyped and judged based on statistics*

No argument on *this* statement of yours from me. Of COURSE men are more prone to violent actions than women. It has to do with our particular mix of hormones that promote aggressive tendencies.

Of course, women also have a negative tendency produced by THEIR particular hormonal setup, but I would rather not get into it.

Of course, these are not set in stone. I've known some HIGHLY aggressive women, one in particular knocked a US Navy Seal unconscious with one punch because he made an inappropriate comment to her. The opposite was true as well.

As I have said, these are just behavioral biases, not hard and fast rules of behavior. How we rise above the negative tendencies introduced by our 'biology' speaks a lot about us as human.

What is the function of the police? To ensure order. Order preserves the government.

I'm not sure I can fully agree with that view. Firstly what is the function of the police? I don't know how the USA sees it but in the UK

In 1829 Sir Richard Mayne wrote:

"The primary object of an efficient police is the prevention of crime: the next that of detection and punishment of offenders if crime is committed. To these ends all the efforts of police must be directed. The protection of life and property, the preservation of public tranquility, and the absence of crime, will alone prove whether those efforts have been successful and whether the objects for which the police were appointed have been attained."

In the 1200's there were Parish Watchmen, and in the 1600's there were Constables of the Watch, also rich property owners had their own private police force to protect their assets. Prior to the Met police in London from 1829 we had the Bow Street Patrols, mounted and foot, commonly called the "Bow Street runners", Police Office constables attached to the offices of Magistrates, and the River police. Sir Robert Peel's proposal that senior uniformed ranks should be filled from below and not brought in from the higher social classes has been followed to this day.

So the history of UK policing moved on from protection of the rich and prevention of crime, to protection of the general public, and as much emphasis on detection as prevention. Peace and order on the streets supports society and upholds standards, it doesn't preserve governments as such, it just makes their task of governance easier. The punishments for people caught breaking the law are varied depending upon the severity of the offence and can be

A Police caution or warning
A Community Service Order
An ASBO
A suspended sentence
A custodial sentence

Any sentence handed out has four intentions

A punishment for wrongdoing
As a deterrent not to re-offend
If custodial, preventing any further criminal actions
As a warning to others what to expect if they also transgress

That may be the theory, but its not really the practice.

Therefore to protect the public the police have to concentrate their efforts on where crime is most likely to take place, in order to curtail as much of it as possible. I will offer this dialogue I had a couple of years ago, no doubt I will be accused by some of being anecdotal, but that is the usual response when someone disagrees with what you say, but can't properly refute it.

I used to be the Coordinator for the Neighborhood Watch on my stretch of road, and as such I dealt regularly with the beat Sergeant and on occasions the local Inspector. The Inspector told me that if they stopped a car with black youths in it, it was much more likely to find something that attracted their attention, from weapons or drugs, to lack of MOT, Tax, Insurance, bald tyres etc, than a car with white youths. He said "that sounds racist I know, and I make no comment as to how, what, or why, but it is simply what my officers find on the streets on a daily basis". But the "Sus laws" were repealed in 1981 and he had instructed his officers to only stop any vehicle or person if they had a good enough reason that would if necessary stand up in court.

It sounds like confirmation bias to me. I have lots of white friends, some of my best friends are even white, and I happen to be aware over the years just how many white people go around breaking the law. Of course most people don't go around bragging about what laws they have broken, so you wouldn't really know just how prevalent it is. I also taught students from all races and backgrounds and could discern no trend regarding which ones were more likely to be out stealing cars and phones over the weekend. In fact the only real trend I did notice is that the same sort of kid who was likely to end up a career criminal was just as likely to join the police force. I found that quite weird as it really isn't what you'd expect.

One thing is very clear here and that is that police actions in America are quite different to the UK. USA police are armed the UK police are not, and they themselves have said that they do not wish to be. We have the SCO19 specialist firearms squad in unmarked cars that can deploy anywhere in the Met area within minutes. We also have ARV's as well and all have a good armoury weapons UK police are also taught how to use a single shot to kill, or a single shot to incapacitate, plus they have Tasers. The impression given here is that American police are more likely to fire first and ask questions afterwards, especially if the miscreant is black, and that is inbuilt racism.

I agree that the prevalence of guns in the US is a huge problem, but despite fact that you are more likely to be killed by a police officer over there than terrorism and Ebola combined, they seem to like it that way.

However, I wouldn't say that the British police are less likely to racist, they are less likely to kill people over it though. (They still manage it though, it just takes a little more work on their part). Some people out there seem to think there is a problem with racism in the police.

London #ACAB Strike! Magazine Posters Say Metropolitan Police 'Still Really Racist'

You seem to have a been there done that story for every situation.

A not unreasonable conclusion but maybe a little unfair. Clyde has recently confirmed that he is a 'Nam Vet, and as such like all the others he would have seen things that were totally horrific, and stuff like Agent Orange deployed in Operation Ranch Hand had terrible effects. He then went on to be NYPD police officer, and as we have heard, experienced a whole range of life threatening situations, a second time. Nobody can doubt his personal courage, but it would be impossible for those life experiences not to have affected his views in later life. I don't agree with his views, and quite strongly so, but I can understand why he has them.

Agreed. It is not unusual for those working in frontline public services to see people at their worst. We get the public, warts and all (teachers learn an awful lot about what goes on in the lives of our students).

Certainly if you are having an interaction with the police it is not going to be on one of your better days. If Clyde says he has seen these things then I believe him.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Looking at the statistics you have shown it is clear the biggest factor in violent crime is your gender. Maybe we shouldn't be calling a "black problem" but a "man problem"?

*steps back to see all the men get upset at being stereotyped and judged based on statistics*

No argument on *this* statement of yours from me. Of COURSE men are more prone to violent actions than women. It has to do with our particular mix of hormones that promote aggressive tendencies.

Of course, women also have a negative tendency produced by THEIR particular hormonal setup, but I would rather not get into it.

Of course, these are not set in stone. I've known some HIGHLY aggressive women, one in particular knocked a US Navy Seal unconscious with one punch because he made an inappropriate comment to her. The opposite was true as well.

As I have said, these are just behavioral biases, not hard and fast rules of behavior. How we rise above the negative tendencies introduced by our 'biology' speaks a lot about us as human.

Those negative tendencies can be reinforced by upbringing (boys will be boys, nice girls don't assert themselves etc). They are tendencies and don't apply to everyone, you are correct, that being human means we can show some control over our biological behaviours and most people do.

However, when it comes to race there are literally no biological differences apart from the amount of melanin in the skin. So if there are discrepancies between the perception of black behaviour and white behaviour they are simply that. Perceptions and biases...or racism if you want to call it what it is. Those perceptions and biases can then be reinforced through the criminal system and economics.

---

Reality Internet Personality

the same sort of kid who was likely to end up a career criminal was just as
likely to join the police force.

Thank Goodness. The Best are Ones who Can Think as The Worse Think. And be Better and At Their Best because of this.

*********

A Baby is Born.

Path Through Life Unknown

Years Pass and Future Shown

Split Second Decisions will be Blown

Hate and Revenge Now is Sown

How You are Affected will Be Known

From this Baby fully Grown

********

Yep

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

Why terrorists won't take black people as hostage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2ASPUkkHMs

But none of them go any way to solving the problem here which is that many people still think that American police are racist towards black people, and that the same people also think that the American justice system is also slanted against black people. There is some evidence to say yes, and some to say no. But nobody seems to have any real answer as to why. I said earlier that

"White people just don't like black people"

Full stop, period, end of story. If is really is as simple as that, why???

The problem is WAY larger than just whites don't like blacks.

The why? A great many people are NOT going to like it. It comes from our biological evolutionary heritage.

In three words, the 'why' can be summed up as follows:

"Us versus Them".

It is not limited to just 'race'. Race is just a somewhat highly visible category, but there are innumerable others. We have a distinct preference for those 'in our group' and a bias against those that are 'different'.

Race (they are sub-human)...
Gender (they have 'cooties')(usually expressed by prepubescent boys towards girls)...
Language (they talk funny)...
Religion (they deny the True God (or lack thereof))...
Wealth (they have stolen all of OUR wealth)...
Power (help, help, I'm being repressed!)...
Education (dang eggheads think they are better than we are)...
Economics (how dare they think they deserve all the wealth they have obtained)...
Politics (they are heartless because they don't wish to help others through government programs)...

The list goes on and on.

'We are better than They are because We are A B and C, and They are X Y and Z.'


ALL of US have our biases.

To expect us to be unbiased is to expect us to no longer be human.

Look at ourselves. Many here are so eager to call others 'racist pig-dogs' we fail to see the SAME behavior in ourselves...

Every Single One of US here has at least one pet *ism that we are an *ist over. Before you go calling someone else an *ist, take a GOOD LONG LOOK in the mirror at yourself.

As to racism, what can we do? Well, about the best we can do is make sure our government's laws are totally color-blind, giving no one single race/ethnic group any advantage over any other. As to the people, well... there is an old saying... You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink...

About the only way I can think of to unify humanity and put ALL of us into the 'US' catagory is to find a non-human intelligence somewhere out there. Maybe that is a BIG part of the reason why this project (S@H) is SO POPULAR... a desire to leave all the *isms and *ists behind.