Bad Boys II

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-01-2018, 06:59 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Looks like he did admit the error of his previous assertion.  I don't see anything more to argue about.

Sorry, no.  In common Fred style he just intimated I said something I did not say.  I did not state whether I believed them or not.  He stated I called them liars, I asked him to admit he lied about this.  He did not.  He wants to weasel mouth his way around admitting he lied.  I'm not letting him.  If you think it needs to end with his obfuscation, then so be it.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-01-2018, 07:05 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Then we don't need to discuss anything else.  That was the only point I was trying to make.

Except that's not racial profiling, that's allowing bigotry to influence your job.  If you want to end it here though, I'm fine with it.  You probably need the respite.  Also, I made that very point in my initial post in this thread.  Odd that you failed to notice.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-01-2018, 07:03 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  All things being equal a group of black males will draw the attention of police more than either of those other groups.  

Ok, a group of elderly black men and a group of Hispanic teenaged males.  Which attracts LEO attention?

[SunsetBengal]

(06-01-2018, 07:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Ok, a group of elderly black men and a group of Hispanic teenaged males.  Which attracts LEO attention?

The one who makes the pistol finger gesture towards the officer?

[*bfine32*]

(06-01-2018, 06:48 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes.  That is exactly what I am doing.

Do you have some sort of problem with that?

It really does nothing to prove systemic profiling. No different than any other profession asserting such 

[fredtoast]

(06-01-2018, 07:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sorry, no.  In common Fred style he just intimated I said something I did not say.  I did not state whether I believed them or not.  He stated I called them liars, I asked him to admit he lied about this.  He did not.  He wants to weasel mouth his way around admitting he lied.  I'm not letting him.  If you think it needs to end with his obfuscation, then so be it.

It was not a lie.  I posted stories about police who confirmed racial profiling exists.  You continued to argue that racial profiling does not exist.  So I was justified in making the assumption that you were saying these police were lying.

Even now you claim there is no racial profiling when 24 of 25 NYPD officers claim they were victims of racial profiling.  So you are the only trying to "weasel mouth" around the issue.

So when those NYPD officers said they were victims of racial profiling were they telling the truth or lying?  Or are you going to try and make up your own definition to avoid calling them liars?

[fredtoast]

(06-01-2018, 07:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It really does nothing to prove systemic profiling. No different than any other profession asserting such 

Except you have to call police officers liars to deny there is racial profiling, and if you call police officers liars then you can't claim you always believe police officers who deny racial profiling.  You are stuck in a "catch 22"

[fredtoast]

(06-01-2018, 07:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Ok, a group of elderly black men and a group of Hispanic teenaged males.  Which attracts LEO attention?

These questions are ridiculous because you have no way of proving the correct answer.

Plus you include so many variables it is impossible to address the issue we are discussing.  Why can't you just ask me about a group of teenage white boys and a group of teenage black boys?  That way we could actually address the issue of racial profiling.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-04-2018, 03:58 PM)fredtoast Wrote: These questions are ridiculous because you have no way of proving the correct answer.

Sure I do.  Based on the information I provided there is a very obvious answer.

Quote:Plus you include so many variables it is impossible to address the issue we are discussing.  Why can't you just ask me about a group of teenage white boys and a group of teenage black boys?  That way we could actually address the issue of racial profiling.

Wait, you mean there are many more variables than ethnicity when taking into account who will be contacted by LEO?  No?!?!?!
What I have, successfully, done is illustrate that there are numerous factors that account for a LEO initiating contact with a person.  Age and gender being two of them.  Behavior being paramount.  Other factors include location and time of day.  Not one law enforcement agency in this nation has an official policy that could be considered racial profiling.  Individual officers will exercise their discretion in ways that could be construed as racial profiling.  Even in such instances that it is suspected I can guarantee you the officer/deputy will be able to give several other solid factors for initiating contact.  You have, by your own admission, defeated your own argument.  I think we can put a bow on this thread and move on.

[fredtoast]

(06-04-2018, 05:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  Not one law enforcement agency in this nation has an official policy that could be considered racial profiling.

NYPD did with their "stop and frisk" policy.

[fredtoast]

(06-04-2018, 05:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  Even in such instances that it is suspected I can guarantee you the officer/deputy will be able to give several other solid factors for initiating contact.  

No you can't.

(06-01-2018, 04:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The researchers could not find a “racially neutral” explanation for the police prioritization of the downtown drug markets and crack. The focus on crack offenders, for example, did not appear to be a function of the frequency of crack transactions compared to other drugs, public safety or public health concerns, crime rates, or citizen complaints

 Whites constitute the majority of those who deliver methamphetamine, ecstasy, powder cocaine, and heroin in Seattle; blacks are the majority of those who deliver crack.  Powder cocaine was involved in an estimated 22.7% of outdoor transactions, but accounted for only 3.8% of drug arrests; methamphetamine was involved in 10.7% of outdoor transactions yet only 1.1% of drug arrests; and heroin was involved in 33% of transactions but in only 16.4% of arrests

[fredtoast]

(06-04-2018, 05:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Wait, you mean there are many more variables than ethnicity when taking into account who will be contacted by LEO?  No?!?!?!
What I have, successfully, done is illustrate that there are numerous factors that account for a LEO initiating contact with a person.  Age and gender being two of them. 

So between a group of teenage whit boys and a group of teenage black boys which ones draws the police attention more?

[*bfine32*]

(06-04-2018, 03:53 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Except you have to call police officers liars to deny there is racial profiling, and if you call police officers liars then you can't claim you always believe police officers who deny racial profiling.  You are stuck in a "catch 22"

No you are not. You would only be caught in said "catch 22" if the officers said they received instructions to commit racial profiling. The opinion of how they were treated as a citizen does not force anyone to call them liars; perhaps they just misperceived their encounter(s).

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-04-2018, 05:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No you can't.

The study absolutely did not say they spoke to the arresting officers and they could not provide another reason for the contact other than race.  You got caught in yet another lie.  This thread isn't going well for you.

(06-04-2018, 05:28 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So between a group of teenage whit boys and a group of teenage black boys which ones draws the police attention more?

It would depend on all those numerous other factors I've already mentioned and you admitted exist.  I don't know why you keep digging this hole deeper.

[fredtoast]

(06-04-2018, 05:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It would depend on all those numerous other factors I've already mentioned and you admitted exist.  I don't know why you keep digging this hole deeper.

No other factors are different.  Everything is the same except race.

[fredtoast]

(06-04-2018, 05:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The study absolutely did not say they spoke to the arresting officers and they could not provide another reason for the contact other than race.  You got caught in yet another lie.  This thread isn't going well for you.

You are the one who made the guarantee.

Now back it up.

You do know what a guarantee means, right?

[fredtoast]

What about the NYPD officers who claimed they were victims of racial profiling.  Wouldn't they know if there was valid reason for them to be treated differently.

You have not posted one shred of evidence to support anything you say.  All you have posted is your opinion.  Do you really think you can win an argument by saying "I am right because I say I am right.  I don't need any proof of anything other than my own opinion."

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-04-2018, 05:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No other factors are different.  Everything is the same except race.

Then they'll either both be contacted or neither will. 

(06-04-2018, 05:41 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You are the one who made the guarantee.

Now back it up.

You do know what a guarantee means, right?

Wait, so you assertion is that an LEO asked about why they established contact with a person will say, "Because they were black"?  That's what you're saying.

(06-04-2018, 05:43 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What about the NYPD officers who claimed they were victims of racial profiling.  Wouldn't they know if there was valid reason for them to be treated differently.

They believe they were racially profiled.  Can you guarantee that they were?

Quote:You have not posted one shred of evidence to support anything you say. All you have posted is your opinion.  

 
Actually I've posted a lot of logical statements that you've been unable to refute.  So logical in fact that you've actually agreed with the majority of my points.  As for posting empirical proof, the studies you've posted have backed up my argument and my points more than they have yours.  Assuming, of course, that all of these studies are equally well executed and of sound empirical, and unbiased, basis.

Quote:Do you really think you can win an argument by saying "I am right because I say I am right.  I don't need any proof of anything other than my own opinion."

No, as that's not what I've done.  I've clearly won this point, though, seeing as you've actually agreed with the majority of my points.  You can stop now, btw.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-04-2018, 05:19 PM)fredtoast Wrote: NYPD did with their "stop and frisk" policy.

Are you familiar with the word "has" and what it means?  Also, did the "stop and frisk" policy state target blacks and other minorities?

[fredtoast]

(06-04-2018, 10:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As for posting empirical proof, the studies you've posted have backed up my argument and my points more than they have yours.

No they have not.  You are going to have to give me an example of what you are talking about.