kipplekipple:

johncory9mm:

kipplekipple:

johncory9mm:

kipplekipple:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

johncory9mm:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

johncory9mm:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

johncory9mm:

I’m pro-choice, but seriously, what is with the black community? There are many forms of contraception, is it really that difficult to act responsibly?

What the fuck is this racist shit?
Look at the source and tell me if you actually believe it. How can you be pro choice and then fall so easily to manipulative pro life propaganda?
"No racial or ethnic group makes up a majority of women having abortions: 36% are non-Hispanic white, 30% are non-Hispanic black, 25% are Hispanic and 9% are women of other races."
http://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/characteristics.html
^^^^ That right there^^^^^ is where you should be looking at statistics from, not fucked up bias graphics that just play up to racism.
Like ffs fact check. People who live in neighbourhoods with more poverty have less access to contraception have higher rates of unintended pregnancies.
-Ash

I believe the stats I posted are strictly Ohio, but even in your national data, 30% of the abortions are by black women. Black people do make up about 13% of the national population, so they are still over represented in the percentages of abortions.
My question, which I doubt you’ll address, is why?

"People who live in neighbourhoods with more poverty have less access to contraception have higher rates of unintended pregnancies."
-Ash

While that might be possible, there are free clinics that provide contraception at no charge. There are also plenty of stores where contraceptives are available.
I don’t think access to contraceptives is a problem.

http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2010/05/04/

I don’t know why we’re even discussing a graphic that was clearly made with the express intention to be racist (and, obviously, anti-choice).
And OP, considering you MADE the post, I don’t think you’re as pro-choice as you claim to be/think you are.

The graphic is definitely from a pro-life group, it is on billboards that have been put up in black communities in Cleveland.
I am pro-choice but that does not mean I like abortion, I don’t. What it means is that I don’t think it is my place to make that decision for another person. A fetus is part of a woman’s body, therefore the decision regarding abortion is up to her.  To say anything less is to say that half of the population are not in charge of their own bodies. 

Your comment was still very racist. Basically, whenever you feel the need to say, “What is up with the [insert marginalised group] community?” - take a step back, take a deep breath, and don’t.
There are a lot of factors you’re not taking into consideration, including the fact that women of colour are more likely to be raped. Laying a higher prevalence of abortion at their door in words which places the responsibility squarely with them is neither a good way to understand contributing factors, nor a good way to move towards addressing them.

You say women of color are more likely to be raped? Why is this?

If that is a genuine question, then I would venture a guess and say that the fetishisation and commodification of black bodies by white people (primarily, but not exclusively, black female bodies by white men) is a huge factor, but I would also say that I am white and not the best authority on the issues women of colour and people of colour face. If it is a genuine question, and not what I suspect it might be, then it is high time to do some research of your own into the way people of colour generally, and women of colour specifically, are treated (particularly on a sexual level) by white culture in the Western world - particularly the US, since that is the country we’re discussing.
If, on the other hand, you’re about to segue into some victim-blaming, sex-shaming bullshit about how they exhibit behaviours which invite rape, then kindly don’t bother ever speaking to me or anyone else ever again, because you are actively part of the problem - those attitudes CAUSE rape.

Are you saying that there is a high instance of white men raping black women? If so, please provide your source for this information. 
I believe that the rate of white men raping black women is practically zero. My source is the U.S. Department of Justice. Please see table 42 for the statistics.

kipplekipple:

johncory9mm:

kipplekipple:

johncory9mm:

kipplekipple:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

johncory9mm:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

johncory9mm:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

johncory9mm:

I’m pro-choice, but seriously, what is with the black community? There are many forms of contraception, is it really that difficult to act responsibly?

What the fuck is this racist shit?

Look at the source and tell me if you actually believe it. How can you be pro choice and then fall so easily to manipulative pro life propaganda?


"No racial or ethnic group makes up a majority of women having abortions: 36% are non-Hispanic white, 30% are non-Hispanic black, 25% are Hispanic and 9% are women of other races."

http://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/characteristics.html

^^^^ That right there^^^^^ is where you should be looking at statistics from, not fucked up bias graphics that just play up to racism.


Like ffs fact check.
People who live in neighbourhoods with more poverty have less access to contraception have higher rates of unintended pregnancies.


-Ash

I believe the stats I posted are strictly Ohio, but even in your national data, 30% of the abortions are by black women. Black people do make up about 13% of the national population, so they are still over represented in the percentages of abortions.

My question, which I doubt you’ll address, is why?

"People who live in neighbourhoods with more poverty have less access to contraception have higher rates of unintended pregnancies."

-Ash

While that might be possible, there are free clinics that provide contraception at no charge. There are also plenty of stores where contraceptives are available.

I don’t think access to contraceptives is a problem.

http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2010/05/04/

I don’t know why we’re even discussing a graphic that was clearly made with the express intention to be racist (and, obviously, anti-choice).

And OP, considering you MADE the post, I don’t think you’re as pro-choice as you claim to be/think you are.

The graphic is definitely from a pro-life group, it is on billboards that have been put up in black communities in Cleveland.

I am pro-choice but that does not mean I like abortion, I don’t. What it means is that I don’t think it is my place to make that decision for another person. A fetus is part of a woman’s body, therefore the decision regarding abortion is up to her.  To say anything less is to say that half of the population are not in charge of their own bodies.

Your comment was still very racist. Basically, whenever you feel the need to say, “What is up with the [insert marginalised group] community?” - take a step back, take a deep breath, and don’t.

There are a lot of factors you’re not taking into consideration, including the fact that women of colour are more likely to be raped. Laying a higher prevalence of abortion at their door in words which places the responsibility squarely with them is neither a good way to understand contributing factors, nor a good way to move towards addressing them.

You say women of color are more likely to be raped? Why is this?

If that is a genuine question, then I would venture a guess and say that the fetishisation and commodification of black bodies by white people (primarily, but not exclusively, black female bodies by white men) is a huge factor, but I would also say that I am white and not the best authority on the issues women of colour and people of colour face. If it is a genuine question, and not what I suspect it might be, then it is high time to do some research of your own into the way people of colour generally, and women of colour specifically, are treated (particularly on a sexual level) by white culture in the Western world - particularly the US, since that is the country we’re discussing.

If, on the other hand, you’re about to segue into some victim-blaming, sex-shaming bullshit about how they exhibit behaviours which invite rape, then kindly don’t bother ever speaking to me or anyone else ever again, because you are actively part of the problem - those attitudes CAUSE rape.

Are you saying that there is a high instance of white men raping black women? If so, please provide your source for this information. 

I believe that the rate of white men raping black women is practically zero. My source is the U.S. Department of Justice. Please see table 42 for the statistics.

relahvant:

perpetualvelocity:

moonjellys:

proudgayconservative:

nolanthebloghog:

The bomb is dropped

The kittens sort of soften the blow.

this is the shittiest post ever. please unfollow me if you agree with this post also shame on OP for using cute kittens for this garbage post

not sure what it is exactly that makes this post so shitty? Because it’s promoting actual equality? instead of saying that you can call everyone else shit because you are part of an oppressed party you can say you are equal to them doesn’t exactly sound like a shitty idea to me.

BOOM. So many people on this website need to read this twice, let it sink in and then read it again.

(via ugh-sjws)

theconcealedweapon:

johncory9mm:

theconcealedweapon:

johncory9mm:

theconcealedweapon:

johncory9mm:

cranberrydeception:

johncory9mm:

tsun: johncory9mm: printsun: Trayvon supporter: If someone were following me…

the-treble:

johncory9mm:

printsun:

johncory9mm:

printsun:

johncory9mm:

printsun:

johncory9mm:

johncory9mm:

printsun:

Trayvon supporter: If…

What the fuck? When is a gun every the proper answer to a fucking fist fight??? NEVER, that’s when.

It wasn’t so much a fist fight, it was more like a beat down. Or as Trayvon Martin’s friend Rachel Jeantel put it, Trayvon was giving him some whoop-ass. 

The proper time to use a gun in self-defense is when you feel you are in danger of death or great bodily harm.

Based on the injuries Zimmerman received from being repeatedly punched in the face and having his head slammed into the pavement, it is reasonable to assume that he thought he was in danger of death or great bodily harm.

Maybe Trayvon Martin felt that he was “in danger of death or great bodily harm” when some random person was following him and was armed?

Why didn’t George Zimmerman just stay in his fucking car? If he really needed a gun to approach someone, why didn’t he avoid that by not approaching him? Why did he purposely put himself into a situation that he considered dangerous enough to carry a gun?

Trayvon might have been afraid, though he had several courses of action he could have taken. He had a cell phone, he could have called his Dad who was close by. He could have also called the police. He could have stayed hidden (he had already lost Zimmerman) or he could have just gone home.

For whatever reason he decided to confront Zimmerman. Trayvon was talking on his phone to his friend Rachel Jeantel and she characterized it as “he was going to give the ‘creepy ass cracker’ some whoop ass.”

Zimmerman didn’t stay in his car because on many other occasions, by the time the police arrived the suspect had disappeared. He wanted to keep track of Trayvon so that he could point him out when the police arrived.

Zimmerman started carrying a gun because he had been previously attacked by a dog and he was advised to carry a gun, which he was doing legally. 

George Zimmerman could have also stopped assuming that a random person who is minding his own business is a “suspect”. Or he could have identified himself as neighborhood watch. Or he could have worn a camera to protect himself from accusations of murder. If I was a neighborhood watch, I would do all of those.

Maybe Trayvon Martin was afraid that the police would take a long time to get there, which is exactly what George Zimmerman was afraid of, but for some reason George Zimmerman’s fear was valid while Trayvon Martin’s was not. Why was it okay for George Zimmerman to take matters into his own hands because the police may not show up in time, but not okay for Trayvon Martin to do the exact same thing, just without a gun? About going home, maybe he didn’t want to go home because he didn’t want his stalker to know where he lived. He’s dead, so he never had the chance to tell the court why he didn’t go home.

There are things George Zimmerman could have done differently too. Why wasn’t he expected to do anything differently? Why aren’t people who have guns expected to do more to prevent using them?

I think you and I have different views on the events that took place that night. I’m not sure if you wanted the trial and saw all the testimony from witnesses and experts, but I suspect you had already made up your mind about this case before the trial began. 

Actually when the initial reports came out, I was on Trayvon’s side. The initial reports made it sound like Zimmerman basically hunted down and killed an unarmed boy. I was outraged, but then I began to see more and more evidence that compelled me to change my view. 

Evidence like the wounds to Zimmerman’s face and the back of his head. The bruised knuckles on Trayvon’s hand. The grass stains on the back of Zimmerman’s jacket and on the knees of Trayvon’s pants, corroborating the witnesses who saw Trayvon punching down at Zimmerman. The screams caught on one of the neighbor’s 911 call, with Zimmerman crying for help and pleading with Trayvon to stop, which went on for over a minute. 

I know that once you make up your mind on a subject, it is extremely difficult to go back and objectively review the evidence, but I urge you to do so.

By the way, as far as carrying a gun goes, in all likelihood both Zimmerman and Trayvon would have been better off if Zimmerman had not been carrying a gun. Zimmerman would have no doubt gotten a worse beat-down than he received that night but he probably would not have been killed or received life threatening injuries. And of course Trayvon would still be alive. 

It is a tragedy but in the end Trayvon was the one who initiated the violence. Based on news reports I doubt that this was the first time he had given someone a beat-down, unfortunately for him on this occasion the guy he tried to beat down was armed.

None of that evidence is a reason for George Zimmerman to be stalking someone in the first place. If he didn’t identify himself as a neighborhood watch, then he was just an armed stalker, and Trayvon Martin had every right to stand his ground. Also, why was he arrested a month and a half later, and only after protests?

The jury decided that what George Zimmerman did was legal. But to prevent something like this from happening again, it should be illegal to stalk someone, and if you’re a neighborhood watch, you should be required to wear a camera and clearly identify yourself. It’s too easy to kill someone and claim self defense, because the dead person can’t share their side of the story.

You seem to be hung up on this stalking thing. I don’t know what you consider ‘stalking’ to be, but Zimmerman had just as much right to go anywhere in that community as Trayvon did. 

While it might have been a good idea to identify himself, he had no requirement to do so. 

George Zimmerman should never have been prosecuted, the state never had any evidence that showed he was guilty of murder or manslaughter. It’s not like the state lost evidence along the way, they never had it. This is why Zimmerman was not initially charged with a crime. It was only when certain civil rights personalities got involved and spun their lies to a gullible media, that the prosecutors were pressured to bring charges.

On a rainy night last year two people saw each other and thought that the other was behaving in a way that concerned him.

One of them decided to call the police and to try to keep track of the other person till the police got there.

The other one decided to confront the person, hit him in the face breaking his nose, then jumped on him when he went down and repeatedly smash his head into the pavement, even while the person he was beating was screaming for help and pleading with him to stop.

Which one made the poorer decision?

theconcealedweapon:

johncory9mm:

theconcealedweapon:

johncory9mm:

cranberrydeception:

johncory9mm:

tsun: johncory9mm: printsun: Trayvon supporter: If someone were following me…

the-treble:

johncory9mm:

printsun:

johncory9mm:

printsun:

johncory9mm:

printsun:

johncory9mm:

johncory9mm:

printsun:

Trayvon supporter: If…

What the fuck? When is a gun every the proper answer to a fucking fist fight??? NEVER, that’s when.

It wasn’t so much a fist fight, it was more like a beat down. Or as Trayvon Martin’s friend Rachel Jeantel put it, Trayvon was giving him some whoop-ass. 

The proper time to use a gun in self-defense is when you feel you are in danger of death or great bodily harm.

Based on the injuries Zimmerman received from being repeatedly punched in the face and having his head slammed into the pavement, it is reasonable to assume that he thought he was in danger of death or great bodily harm.

Maybe Trayvon Martin felt that he was “in danger of death or great bodily harm” when some random person was following him and was armed?

Why didn’t George Zimmerman just stay in his fucking car? If he really needed a gun to approach someone, why didn’t he avoid that by not approaching him? Why did he purposely put himself into a situation that he considered dangerous enough to carry a gun?

Trayvon might have been afraid, though he had several courses of action he could have taken. He had a cell phone, he could have called his Dad who was close by. He could have also called the police. He could have stayed hidden (he had already lost Zimmerman) or he could have just gone home.

For whatever reason he decided to confront Zimmerman. Trayvon was talking on his phone to his friend Rachel Jeantel and she characterized it as “he was going to give the ‘creepy ass cracker’ some whoop ass.”

Zimmerman didn’t stay in his car because on many other occasions, by the time the police arrived the suspect had disappeared. He wanted to keep track of Trayvon so that he could point him out when the police arrived.

Zimmerman started carrying a gun because he had been previously attacked by a dog and he was advised to carry a gun, which he was doing legally. 

George Zimmerman could have also stopped assuming that a random person who is minding his own business is a “suspect”. Or he could have identified himself as neighborhood watch. Or he could have worn a camera to protect himself from accusations of murder. If I was a neighborhood watch, I would do all of those.

Maybe Trayvon Martin was afraid that the police would take a long time to get there, which is exactly what George Zimmerman was afraid of, but for some reason George Zimmerman’s fear was valid while Trayvon Martin’s was not. Why was it okay for George Zimmerman to take matters into his own hands because the police may not show up in time, but not okay for Trayvon Martin to do the exact same thing, just without a gun? About going home, maybe he didn’t want to go home because he didn’t want his stalker to know where he lived. He’s dead, so he never had the chance to tell the court why he didn’t go home.

There are things George Zimmerman could have done differently too. Why wasn’t he expected to do anything differently? Why aren’t people who have guns expected to do more to prevent using them?

I think you and I have different views on the events that took place that night. I’m not sure if you wanted the trial and saw all the testimony from witnesses and experts, but I suspect you had already made up your mind about this case before the trial began. 

Actually when the initial reports came out, I was on Trayvon’s side. The initial reports made it sound like Zimmerman basically hunted down and killed an unarmed boy. I was outraged, but then I began to see more and more evidence that compelled me to change my view. 

Evidence like the wounds to Zimmerman’s face and the back of his head. The bruised knuckles on Trayvon’s hand. The grass stains on the back of Zimmerman’s jacket and on the knees of Trayvon’s pants, corroborating the witnesses who saw Trayvon punching down at Zimmerman. The screams caught on one of the neighbor’s 911 call, with Zimmerman crying for help and pleading with Trayvon to stop, which went on for over a minute. 

I know that once you make up your mind on a subject, it is extremely difficult to go back and objectively review the evidence, but I urge you to do so.

By the way, as far as carrying a gun goes, in all likelihood both Zimmerman and Trayvon would have been better off if Zimmerman had not been carrying a gun. Zimmerman would have no doubt gotten a worse beat-down than he received that night but he probably would not have been killed or received life threatening injuries. And of course Trayvon would still be alive. 

It is a tragedy but in the end Trayvon was the one who initiated the violence. Based on news reports I doubt that this was the first time he had given someone a beat-down, unfortunately for him on this occasion the guy he tried to beat down was armed.

theconcealedweapon:

johncory9mm:

cranberrydeception:

johncory9mm:

tsun: johncory9mm: printsun: Trayvon supporter: If someone were following me…

the-treble:

johncory9mm:

printsun:

johncory9mm:

printsun:

johncory9mm:

printsun:

johncory9mm:

johncory9mm:

printsun:

Trayvon supporter: If…

What the fuck? When is a gun every the proper answer to a fucking fist fight??? NEVER, that’s when.

It wasn’t so much a fist fight, it was more like a beat down. Or as Trayvon Martin’s friend Rachel Jeantel put it, Trayvon was giving him some whoop-ass. 

The proper time to use a gun in self-defense is when you feel you are in danger of death or great bodily harm.

Based on the injuries Zimmerman received from being repeatedly punched in the face and having his head slammed into the pavement, it is reasonable to assume that he thought he was in danger of death or great bodily harm.

Maybe Trayvon Martin felt that he was “in danger of death or great bodily harm” when some random person was following him and was armed?

Why didn’t George Zimmerman just stay in his fucking car? If he really needed a gun to approach someone, why didn’t he avoid that by not approaching him? Why did he purposely put himself into a situation that he considered dangerous enough to carry a gun?

Trayvon might have been afraid, though he had several courses of action he could have taken. He had a cell phone, he could have called his Dad who was close by. He could have also called the police. He could have stayed hidden (he had already lost Zimmerman) or he could have just gone home.

For whatever reason he decided to confront Zimmerman. Trayvon was talking on his phone to his friend Rachel Jeantel and she characterized it as “he was going to give the ‘creepy ass cracker’ some whoop ass.”

Zimmerman didn’t stay in his car because on many other occasions, by the time the police arrived the suspect had disappeared. He wanted to keep track of Trayvon so that he could point him out when the police arrived.

Zimmerman started carrying a gun because he had been previously attacked by a dog and he was advised to carry a gun, which he was doing legally. 

cranberrydeception:

johncory9mm:

tsun: johncory9mm: printsun: Trayvon supporter: If someone were following me…

the-treble:

johncory9mm:

printsun:

johncory9mm:

printsun:

johncory9mm:

printsun:

johncory9mm:

johncory9mm:

printsun:

Trayvon supporter: If…

What the fuck? When is a gun every the proper answer to a fucking fist fight??? NEVER, that’s when.

It wasn’t so much a fist fight, it was more like a beat down. Or as Trayvon Martin’s friend Rachel Jeantel put it, Trayvon was giving him some whoop-ass. 

The proper time to use a gun in self-defense is when you feel you are in danger of death or great bodily harm.

Based on the injuries Zimmerman received from being repeatedly punched in the face and having his head slammed into the pavement, it is reasonable to assume that he thought he was in danger of death or great bodily harm.

theconcealedweapon:

johncory9mm:

tsun: johncory9mm: printsun: Trayvon supporter: If someone were following me…

the-treble:

johncory9mm:

printsun:

johncory9mm:

printsun:

johncory9mm:

printsun:

johncory9mm:

johncory9mm:

printsun:

Trayvon supporter: If someone were following me I’d give them a beat down.
Me: What would you do if you were armed and someone punched you in the face knocking you to the ground, then jumped on you and smashed your head into the pavement and pummeled you for…

Zimmerman didn’t initiate the fight, he was just looking to protect his neighbors from getting robbed.

Trayvon’s big mistake was trying to give a beat-down to someone who had a gun. Unfortunately you only learn that lesson once.

No he did.

He got out of the car when told not to. He followed and pursued when warned by the operator that they didn’t need him to do that.

He was looking for a reason to use his gun. To fight someone.

And he ended it, by killing something who didn’t and still did no deserve to die.

Trayvon’s mistake was leaving the house apparently. That is the unfortunate part of this entire case.

He was looking to keep track of someone he told the police looked suspicious. He was not looking to get into a confrontation. He wanted to be able to point out the whereabouts of Trayvon when the police arrived.

If you have evidence that he intended to get into a fight and kill someone, please let me know what it is.

Check the bold statement again.

It’s funny when we bring up this case and people actually try to forget this information?

He racially profiled a boy. A boy with a pack of skittles and ice tea.

Here’s my evidence.

Who’s alive right now? Zimmerman. I mean he already knows the amount of people talking about this case. The sentence he is to serve if he is convicted. So of course he is going to make the victim seem like the bad guy. And hey bonus, he is dead!

You know, people keep saying, there are two sides to a story. Which is true. But one side is dead and being dragged threw the mud. That make sense to you?

He did get out of his car, he was told he didn’t have to follow, a statement the dispatcher characterized as a suggestion, not an order. He did this to keep track of Trayvon till the police arrived.

If you think he set out to kill Trayvon, why would he scream for help and plead with Trayvon to stop beating him? Why wouldn’t he shoot him after the first punch, or even before Trayvon punched him? Why would he wait till he was practically beaten senseless?

Neighborhood, watch.

You observe. You call the police if you see suspicious activity. And you’re done. That’s it. Over.

Why do you keep asking questions you know neither of us can answer?

Not to mention both sides were saying that the voice sounding like either Zimmerman or Trayvon?

So once again, YOU have no evidence it was self defense, I have no evidence that Zimmerman had the intent murder someone that night.
But he did.

Because again the evidence is TOO VAGUE TO BE USED AS EVIDENCE.

A young man was walking home, unarmed. A man felt threatened and in spite of being told not to he did anyway. And in the mist of this fight, Zimmerman felt the need to kill him. And it was wrong.

I didn’t comment on your post to change your mind. I simply answered your question. And I stick by it. Killing someone just because you were in a fight, is not and never will be a reason for murder.

This conversation is over because your ignorance is too thick for me to even continue.

Zimmerman had every right to leave his car and keep track of Trayvon if he chose to do so.

The evidence I have that it was Zimmerman screaming is that he was the one getting the beat down. He had the broken nose and the gashes on the back of his head. He was the one pinned on the bottom, he had grass stains on the back of his jacket, Trayvon had grass stains on his knees.

There we have it, everyone. johncory9mm believes stalking is a fundamental right.

For someone serving as a neighborhood watch, trying to protect his neighbors from crime, it is part of the job description to keep track of someone you deem suspicious. 

It’s not only a fundamental right, it was part of his duty.

Why couldn’t he “keep track of someone” while staying in his car? Why couldn’t he have put something on his car that identified him as neighborhood watch? Any reasonable person, when they believe someone is dangerous, would watch them from a distance. Protecting your neighbors from criminals is not an excuse to become one.

Trayvon took a path between the houses, going down a courtyard of sorts that was between the backs of the houses. Zimmerman could not follow him in his car because there was no road there.

In order to keep track of the whereabouts of Martin, Zimmerman had to leave his car.

theconcealedweapon:

johncory9mm:

Trayvon supporter: If someone were following me I’d give them a beat down.
Me: What would you do if you were armed and someone punched you in the face knocking you to the ground, then jumped on you and smashed your head into the pavement and pummeled you for over a minute while you screamed for help and pleaded with him to stop?
Trayvon supporter: …

Trayvon supporter: That would never happen to me, because I don’t stalk people who are minding their own business and approach them while armed. I also wouldn’t agree to a boxing match against a professional fighter if I couldn’t defend myself against an unarmed teenager.

I’m glad you don’t do that, but what is the point of your statement? The scenario you laid out has nothing to do with the events that took place the night Zimmerman shot Trayvon.