‘They’re Beating Every White Person’: Riots, Fires After Fatal Shooting Sparks Chaos

Why is it that blacks riot & loot when a black police officer shoots a black man with a gun and a long criminal history? Before they blame all of their problems on whitey, they need to look inward and work on the problems they themselves create! According to FBI statistics, a black man is 40 times more likely to be shot and killed by another black man, than by a police officer!

 

Between 97%-98%

- - - Updated - - -

They rioted before the facts came out. They heard a brotha got shot and acted accordingly.

 

690 people are move to Washington DC every month. http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/30115/who-are-dcs-1000-new-residents-per-month/

 

what???

 

now tell us what % voted for each president before obama starting with carter

 

Looting and rioting is horrific. There is no excuse for it. None. It reflects poorly on all Black people especially when people chose to believe that all Black people act like that. When, in actuality, again, no body looks at the data about how many Black people do that and leap to conclusions.

Also, language matters. You say 'Black people' - that language implies all. So you are factually incorrect. When you are talking about race, you should be very careful. That's just my opinion.

However, when you reference the FBI statistic, you are right. And it is sad that the issue of Black on Black crime doesn't garner the most Black outrage. That's where it should be targeted...not at cops. Without cops, the situation in Black inner cities would be worse.

- - - Updated - - -

Let's share the load of finding the data. I just found three sources giving you data on the Obama voters. Can you do the same for Carter?

- - - Updated - - -

Drop the 'are'...I trust the statement will make sense after you do that.

 

No im going to do the math thats my 50% you are going to provide the statistics I will do the analysis on.

 

The phrase "black people", in the context of his sentence, does NOT imply "all", so YOU are factually incorrect. Implication means "the conclusion that can be drawn from something, although it is not explicitly stated."When he said that "blacks riot and loot" I would doubt very much that there is even one sane person reading that sentence that took that to mean that 40 million African Americans took part in a riot. While it was not explicitly stated, the rational inference to draw from that statement is that a group of African Americans rioted and looted. In the same vein, if someone were to say that "New Yorkers love their pizza", the logical inference is not that EVERY New Yorker loves pizza.

Language DOES matter, and you are bastardizing the meaning of imply.

 

Will you be publishing the study and taking all the credit to? Will you at least give me a copy of the signed book?

 

This is not true. You can repeat yourself. You can capitalize your words. You can appeal to what 'sane' people would believe or think. None of those things changes the logic of his statement.

Broad statements are inclusive if modifiers are not attached to them.

Oranges roll. This statement implies all oranges roll. Blacks loot and riot. This statement implies all Blacks loot and riot.

You can claim he 'meant' something else. But his language did not convey that meaning if this is the case. All he would have to do is modify his statement with something like 'some','most','many','few'...even that would be a sloppy argument because I am quite sure he doesn't have a dataset.

 

Depends on how hard you work.

 

Implication is what someone logically infers from a statement, beyond what is explicitly stated. Implication is distinctly related to the context in which something is said. I am NOT (yes capitalized for emphasis) claiming that he "meant" something else. I am responding to the notion of what is implied and correctly inferred from his statement. What is implied is the rational inference to draw from a particular statement. It is wholly illogical to conclude that the logical inference to draw from saying "blacks riot and loot" is that ALL blacks participate in rioting and looting. I make reference to "sane" because it speaks to the logical component to drawing an inference.

When you apply a generality to a physics principal such as a "spherical objects rolls", then yes, in that context the logical inference would be that it means all. When you apply a generality to a specific action with a diverse group of 40 million people however, you cannot LOGICALLY infer that it means all. Context matters, and mentioning that an orange rolls is therefore NOT analogous. You are unnecessarily complicating the communication process. The goal of communication is to convey ideas and concepts and we almost always speak in a shorthand that requires the receiver to infer meaning. You are wholly misrepresenting the logical inference from his statement.

If you had originally said that the literal interpretation of his words was that it meant all, that is arguable, but I probably would not have bothered to respond. You said the "implication" of what he said however, which is another matter entirely. Literal and implicit mean two entirely different things, and because we are debating implicit, you are inarguably wrong.

 

90% of blacks voted for Al Gore the southerner.

obviously they voted for him because they hate white people.

- - - Updated - - -

Not denying facts. Thus far the only evidence of an attack was a white man being hit in the neck by a bullet. I hope he recovers, and that whoever shot him is found and punished.

Now, where is the evidence of bunches of white people being dragged out of their cars and beaten?

 

Sounds like a tremendous honor. However, I am clearly not worthy of such a post. Rather than waste your time, I will graciously bow out. My regards.