which he then segways into:
totally irrelevant to the statement at the beginning. why even include it?
How is it NOT relevant? It reflects that I have, from personal experience, found this statistic to be quite true in my own community.
Planr then guesses, judging by these teens being "rowdy", that they obviously don't have strong father figues to teach them how to be good white citizens, and thus that's why they act so crazy. like, do as they please? is no one a little perturbed by the wording of this stuff?
Yeah, I guessed. Do you know what the word guess means? It means I don't really know. So, I used deductive reasoning, and my own knowledge of the relation between a person's behavior and the environment they were raised in, to figure out the most likely reason why those black kids were behaving the way they did. Notice I never related any of it to the color of their skin or their "race". Their race has nothing to do with this, at all. Stop trying to insinuate that it does. "Good white citizens"? Who's being tribal now?
The only factor in which the fact that they are black plays in here is that that's simply the group of people that are generally facing such problems the most, not because of who they are- but the circumstances of their family lives, which again, have nothing to do with their skin color. If anything, it's because of the ancestral white southern Americans that so many black people still live in poverty. We learned about this very well in United States History last year at my school.
Here's a history lesson for you: After the Civil War ended, and the white plantation owners had to release their slaves, many of those slaves had nothing of their own to start a new life with. Of course, since they had nothing, their chances of even traveling to the north were very difficult without direct intervention from others who were more fortunate. So what happened? Sharecropping. The white plantation owners let many of those black families/freed slaves back to their plantations to work on it, in exchange for food and shelter. It was wasn't quite slavery, as by law they were now free to walk off the plantation and quit whenever they wanted, but like I said, there wasn't much of anywhere else for them to go. They couldn't afford to move north, they couldn't afford to get their own property, so the only thing they really could do was return to a similar environment to the one they had previously despised so much.
The poverty they continued to struggle through continues to this day; the povertic conditions in which so many african americans suffered then was passed down to their children and their grandchildren, and so forth. That's why we still see so many blacks living in poverty to this day, and why there is still such a crCIA for blacks in our country. Families without a strong father figure in the home are far more likely to raise disobedient and/or troublemaking kids. And a lot of african-american families that live in poverty have only a single parent in the home.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/39993685/ns/health-womens_health/t/blacks-struggle-percent-unwed-mothers-rate/#.VBj6YPldV8Ethe fact you're trying this back to race is a big red warning- this is baseless. any kid could be a richard and cut in line- people cut in line's all the damn time. of course, you tie it back to him being black though
Maybe you should reread my post. You'll notice that nowhere did I attribute their behavior to the color of their skin, nor "tie it back to him being black", but to their possible family conditions at home. Disorderly families naturally create disorderly kids. Not "black families create disorderly kids". Their skin color is simply a neutral attribute that so many of them happen to have. It's unfortunate, but the probabilities that a randomly selected african american in the US grew up in a poor family is statistically much higher than that of a white person. That's not racism, that's simply circumstance and fact.
I totally agree that anyone can cheat, lie, or cut in line. We're all humans, we're all in the same boat of sin here.
is your entire argument "black people cut in line, thus this black actress is obviously lying?" what is the point of this forgetin prejudiced rambling? this is so disconnected from the issue here, you're just spewing your beliefs.
Yet again you're deliberately twisting the context of my post FAR outside the bounds of what it was so obviously meaning. I think the black actress is lying because Bisjac pointed out something very important in his post that that left-wing news site was not:
i dont see any sign of racism. the call was made because they were loving in a car. of course she will tell a different story herself, but nothing was changed between the call and when the police got there. so at least 10 min went by and we are to believe they were just making out or something? lol
sounds like legit indecent exposure, and the classic black person "playing victim" story.
