Summations Only

Then as you fall within the set of "anyone", you'll have no trouble coming up with an implicit association test that gives the exact opposite result.Let us know how you get on.What this has to do with "push polling" you do not explain.

How often is sometimes?Police In England And Wales Went Two Years Without Fatally Shooting Someone | FiveThirtyEight

The cartoon linked in the comments says it all.http://i.kinja-img.com/..._80,w_636/vka7tsi41jkdtzrzqh2a.jpg

But that's always how it works. You never get a situation where the cop says: "You're a nigger, so I'm going to shoot you for being a nigger ... is anyone taking this down? Great, 'cos I want to put that on record. So, to be perfectly clear about this, this is all about skin color." BANG!But you do have to wonder what's going on.http://www.addictinginfo.org/...her-home-beat-and-kidnap-her... cue Faith explaining how it was her fault for being out of doors.

Of course you didn't just blame the victim twice in a row, and it would be a maliciously accurate slander to point out that that's exactly what you did.

Perhaps the police ought to gun down everyone who's open-carrying a gun, or something that looks like one. I'll leave that up to you to decide. But as in fact they don't, one has to wonder why they did so in this particular case. I mean, no-one shot these guys.

And yet I don't think that RAZD, or anyone else, has ever said on other thread or anyone else that people practicing open-carry should be shot just for that.Meanwhile, in other threads, the pro-gun people have said that gun ownership is a right, and even that it's positively desirable. And yet when a black kid is shot for nearly owning a gun, well, now it's his fault he got shot and anyone who doesn't think so is some kind of hypocrite ...So, how does this work in your head? Is gun ownership a constitutional right for white people but a legitimate reason to execute black people without a trial? Golly, white people get all the luck, don't they?

You say there's a difference? What does it consist in? What besides his skin color, means that he's "menacing the neighborhood park" rather than exercising his constitutional rights for Freedom and the American Way in it, like it is when white people take (real) guns into a park?

Yes, one person did call the cops, and said the gun was "probably fake". (How manacing!) I'm not sure what "waving it around" is meant to mean. I don't think that white people hold their guns completely still, because for one thing they wouldn't be able to take them home with them in that case.Now, please, explain why the kid was a menace, but this guy's a guardian of freedom? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Compare and contrast: See, he scared people, he had a real gun, 22 people called the police to express their fear, and that's his constitutional right, as conservatives are eager to explain. But they are also eager to explain that a black child with a toy is a menace who's just asking to be shot.

But of course they are. The question would be, was Rice treated differently? Why was he treated as a "menace" when white guys with real guns are true American heroic patriots who have done nothing wrong, and who don't get shot?

Insofar as your pathetic drivel of nonsense has any content beyond the fact that you're butthurt, I feel that it has been answered by post #53 and similar posts --- and by understanding the concept of time, and that not everything happens simultaneously, something that I hardly thought I should have to point out to you.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Sure, we can't read minds, and no-one turns to the camera, in the one-in-a-hundred times when there's a camera present, and says "Hi, just to clear this up for you, this is racially motivated".But there is a pattern, isn't there? Maybe we should stop talking about anecdotes and start talking about statistics.

It's interesting that you should start to obfuscate the statistics even before we've started to look at them. I just mentioned that we might look at the statistics, and before you've even seen a single statistic, you start crying out that they don't prove racism, and start thinking up ways where if the statistics suggest racism, we should discount the statistics --- whatever they are.And here's your narrative "there is a problem when white cops confront blacks in their community when they've committed a crime". What about when they haven't? When I posted this ... http://www.addictinginfo.org/...her-home-beat-and-kidnap-her ... you were all up in arms when I suggested you'd defend the police no matter what. But now you define the discussion as how white police and black criminals react "when white cops confront blacks in their community when they've committed a crime".

Interesting article.