Detroit Real Estate Prices?

[SlapStick 0]

I'm pretty sure I'm better off personally and financially than 95% of the posters here.I'm certainly a loser and a failure in a few ways, but probably not the ones you might think.

I'm not going to get into debating this obviously but yea I don't believe that at all.

[AmScray 355]

I'm not going to get into debating this obviously but yea I don't believe that at all.

Not much I can do about what people choose to believe. The entire discussion with TimWakefield is evidence of that.

[timwakefield 68]

You've pretty much devolved into howing "RACIST!" and "IGNORANT!" when presented with some pretty unarguable facts.

Whereas you...no you mostly just called black people monkeys and said they destroyed Detroit with their monkey ways. Ok though, I'll take the bait. You've hardly said anything substantively factual, so there's not much to go on. Firstly,

Right. I'm clearly not an intelligent nor thoughtful person. That's why I just rely on statistics, while you rely on...

I didn't say you weren't intelligent or thoughtful. I said you weren't intelligent and thoughtful. Clearly you're intelligent in many ways. Anyway, this is the first point at which you submit anything factual to back your claim that Detroit's downfall can be completely summed up as: black people.

First of all, a quick google search reveals that you likely found those images on white-history.com. I'll assume that the chart nonetheless presents accurate census data. You seem to have edited out, perhaps accidentally, the other image you had posted and now you have the same one twice. I believe you had the second graph from the top in my link, %Black population vs Homicide rate 1930-2000.Anyway, I'll also continue to assume that that is where you got the images, and I will very quickly discredit the website (as if the url wasn't obvious enough):That was easy. So it's blatant that these graphs and charts are not being presented in an objective manner. I'm not going to spend all day trying to study and refute your numbers with my northeastern elitist faggy liberal numbers (if you complain enough I might, but don't cross your fingers). I think for now it's enough to show that the only actual facts you presented in the entire thread came from a website that gives Hitler a shout-out on it's home-page. I said:

If the black race is so inferior, how come so many of them in middle-class and upper-class environments are so smart and succeed so highly? It must just be a coincidence, right? that with a proper upbringing and proper opportunities they thrive just the same as members of any other race. Biggest coincidence ever, but it must be one because they're monkeys?

You said:

... statistical anomalies.

Your answer ignores the fallacy I tried to make clear. As far as we're allowing sweeping generalizations, what I tried to point out is that most blacks who get a "proper" upbringing and have proper opportunities thrive as well as members of any other race. Calling it a statistical anomaly totally ignores what I said. One thing leads to the other, how is that a statistical anomaly? Except in the sense that an anomalously small percentage of black people have had "proper" opportunities in this country in the last few generations?

[AmScray 355]

I'll assume that the chart nonetheless presents accurate census data....I'm not going to spend all day trying to study and refute your numbers with my northeastern elitist faggy liberal numbers (if you complain enough I might, but don't cross your fingers)...

So, if you can't refute the facts, refute the context?It's quite simple. Lets make a bet.I'm willing to pull all the data myself presented in those stats and present it here. We pay LLY to determine if the figures in question line up, because he's the resident Mathie (and, ya know... Math itself is pretty neutral).I'm willing to wager $1000 (escrowed) that they do. Are you willing to wager $1000 (escrowed) that those statistics are wrong? From this, we subtract LLY's fee. It's completely ****ing absurd to take the position that statistics are invalid (or, "refutable" in your own parlance), just because you don't like the source that presents them. Obviously, statistics on race and crime are going to be found pretty quickly on otherwise 'racist' websites, since mainstream places won't touch that stuff with a 10 foot pole, regardless of how factual it may be, yet the figures themselves don't require a PhD in Mathematics to throw into a chart and make visual, so anyone can do it. And if you're going to reference the website in question, at least do so with the link that is most appropriate to this discussion...The Ruins Of DetroitAnyway, do let me know about that bet; about those statistics being wrong (which you obviously aren't going to take, unless you hate money). I'm willing to get behind Adolf Hitler himself saying them, if they're factual. All you can do is argue against the messenger rather than the message, which is like a blaring siren that someone is taking an indefensible, emotion-based position (which yours is, thus explaining the KKK pictures, cat-calling for people to 'support you' in this discussion, etc). ... and if you AREN'T claiming that those statistics are inaccurate, how about answering for them, rather than trying to discredit them by unpopular association?

Your answer ignores the fallacy I tried to make clear. As far as we're allowing sweeping generalizations, what I tried to point out is that most blacks who get a "proper" upbringing and have proper opportunities thrive as well as members of any other race. Calling it a statistical anomaly totally ignores what I said. One thing leads to the other, how is that a statistical anomaly? Except in the sense that an anomalously small percentage of black people have had "proper" opportunities in this country in the last few generations?

I love it when people like you throw out the word 'fallacy'.Your comment has a colossal qualifier that greatly distances itself from what I'm saying... "get a proper upbringing..."A large part of my argument relies on the glaring evidence that so many blacks are completely unable to 'properly bring up' their children and that enormous, overwhelming segments of black culture itself has become a wasteland of failure, non-productivity and parasitic existence. All statistical evidence maintains that those few who reach beyond this are outside the statistical mean. Your position is akin to saying "Most people win with 7/2 offsuit when they hit the flop..." THAT, moron, is a fallacy of conversational logic and is kissing-cousin to the position you're trying to take with your gigantic 'receive a proper upbringing' caveat, in this context. If you want statistics, though, here are some that might interest you.http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucrAnyway, that bet. Do let me know... or, post pictures of Hitler, say "ignorant" and "racist" and "trailer park" and maybe something about inbreeding and "fucking your cousin!" because, ya know. People like you aren't totally predictable retards in this debate and all that stuff would be very novel and meaningful.

[digitalmonkey 929]

Sooooooooooo...About that real estate in Detroit.Maybe we should build a modern Vegas.

[SlapStick 0]

Fat failure...fat failure. How did I forget that.

[SBriand 4]

I haven't read the entire topic, just bits and pieces but I will throw my two cents in on why Detroit is the way it is now.Not in any certain order:1. Auto Industry2. Bad State Economy3. The People Who Live in Detroit (aka...the black people)I live in the suburbs of Detroit, about 15 minutes north. I work in a suburb of Detroit, about 1 minute east. Obv the auto industry helped ruin the city and the State. When the crap hit the fan a few years back we lost about 10% of our tenants due to the lay offs and downsizing by Ford and GM. I still have some GM guys here who get weeks off at a time with no pay because there is no work. Luckily though the Volt plant is now operating and that has helped tremendously. The State as a whole is f'ed up so it is safe to say that if the State is failing then it's poor areas like Flint and Detroit will fail harder.The people in Detroit played a HUGE part in ruining their city. There is a great divide between the city proper and the suburbs and it surely seems like a black and white thing. Detroit has to have one of the most corrupt city council in this great nation. At least top 5. They have done enough to have the FBI involved and have indictments thrown around the table. They have voted in a couple criminal mayors which helped drive the city down to the ground. People are leaving the city in droves the last couple years and what is left is a largely uneducated group of people with no desire or drive. Kroger pulled out of Detroit along with a couple other grocery chains because they couldn't find anyone suitable to employ and they constant shoplifting was killing their bottom line. Houses are cheap all around here, not just Detroit. There are houses in the suburbs going for under $50K. You just have to be careful and look at the taxes. There are places in Detroit where the taxes are over $20K a year. Sure the house is selling for $2K but your getting raped in taxes and the city doesn't even have the means to handle trash and snow removal. Detroit would be more f'ed if the suburbanites didn't go into the city and spend money. Though many Detroiters have spoken out saying that the suburbs need to stay out and leave them be. I don't think that would help them too much. They need us to go to Wings, Lions, and Tigers games. They need us to hang out in the Fox district and see shows and spend money in the bars and restaurants. They need us to go to the Greektown, MGM, and Motorcity Casino.I can't wait to move...

[speedz99 145]

And how come I'm the only one to ever argue against the platform of "White people are superior?" I mean come on, I know I'm not the person here who thinks it's beyond moronic.

It's not an argument worth making, anymore than "Hey, bro, Jews aren't that bad," was an argument worth having with Hitler. I'm not saying scram is like Hitler, necessarily, but that he has his theories and is an immovable object. He's smart enough to understand the socioeconomic argument, but in his mind it's irrelevant, so what's the point?

[AmScray 355]

It's not an argument worth making, anymore than "Hey, bro, Jews aren't that bad," was an argument worth having with Hitler. I'm not saying scram is like Hitler, necessarily, but that he has his theories and is an immovable object. He's smart enough to understand the socioeconomic argument, but in his mind it's irrelevant, so what's the point?

The 'socioeconomic argument' isn't irrelevant all together. It's just that those who advance it really can't seem to decipher when it's an appropriate answer to the question being asked. To them, the answer is always 'the socioeconomic argument' even when that position is clearly inapplicable to a lot (if not most) of the larger questions that nag the great race debate.If the question is "why do more blacks deal drugs" or "why do more blacks drive shittier cars", sure. Socioeconomics. If the question is "why do blacks have lower IQ's than any other race according to every rational, scientific measure", or "why do blacks commit certain sex offenses to a rate disproportionate to their overall population" or "why are blacks so overrepresented in top level athletics", then no, socioeconomics don't apply here, yet the apologists insist on ramming that square peg into the round hole and are perfectly willing to engage in spectacular contortions of logic and suspensions of reason to arrive at that position. What's most impressive is how they're able to keep a straight face.

[speedz99 145]

The 'socioeconomic argument' isn't irrelevant all together. It's just that those who advance it really can't seem to decipher when it's an appropriate answer to the question being asked. To them, the answer is always 'the socioeconomic argument' even when that position is clearly inapplicable to a lot (if not most) of the larger questions that nag the great race debate.

I guess this is where we disagree. In my mind, the socioeconomic argument is clearly applicable to a lot (if not most) of the larger questions. In many ways because it leaves us in a place where we can't answer a lot of the larger questions. Would another (non-black) race of people have been able to overcome two hundred years of slavery and oppression in the past 50 years to have an overwhelmingly positive influence on our society by today? Maybe, who knows. And you can't just say "well Italians and Irish were poor when they got here and did ok" because that was a completely different situation in too many ways to count. Realistically, we'll never know exactly how much genetics plays into any of this, which is another reason why it's an argument I usually try to stay out of. But, in the end, I give people the benefit of the doubt and lean towards the socioeconomic thing, maybe just because that's what I'd prefer the answer to be.

[AmScray 355]

Would another (non-black) race of people have been able to overcome two hundred years of slavery and oppression in the past 50 years to have an overwhelmingly positive influence on our society by today?

Says the Jew?

[speedz99 145]

If the question is "why do blacks have lower IQ's than any other race according to every rational, scientific measure"

You really don't think socioeconomic status affects IQ?

"why do blacks commit certain sex offenses to a rate disproportionate to their overall population"

You don't think poor whites commit sexual offenses to a rate disproportionate to their overall population, when population statistics includes economic status?

"why are blacks so overrepresented in top level athletics"

Well, yeah, they're better athletes. So, of course, the next question you could ask is, "If you admit they're genetically more muscular, why can't they're brains be genetically different as well?"I'd say that they can be different, but I don't think it has been proven to be the case, and I don't think the difference would be so marked that it would allow for one to definitively say that, all things being equal, in a total vacuum, a black man is more likely to be a criminal and help ruin a city than a white man.

[speedz99 145]

Says the Jew?

Ok, fair point. But Jews, no matter what cartoon images you may have, are able to sneak their way back into society much easier than black former slaves, who stuck out like a sore thumb back in the day, making it much harder to overcome...et cetera. You know what I mean.

[AmScray 355]

You really don't think socioeconomic status affects IQ?

Not at all, no, as evidenced by any number of Chinese dirt farmers who still score higher than the average European.

You don't think poor whites commit sexual offenses to a rate disproportionate to their overall population, when population statistics includes economic status?

I'm unaware of any statistics that are controlled for economic status by race, but I am a betting man and I know on whom I would bet.

Well, yeah, they're better athletes. So, of course, the next question you could ask is, "If you admit they're genetically more muscular, why can't they're brains be genetically different as well?" I'd say that they can be different, but I don't think it has been proven to be the case, and I don't think the difference would be so marked that it would allow for one to definitively say that, all things being equal, in a total vacuum, a black man is more likely to be a criminal and help ruin a city than a white man.

Oh. OK.

[AmScray 355]

Ok, fair point. But Jews, no matter what cartoon images you may have, are able to sneak their way back into society much easier than black former slaves, who stuck out like a sore thumb back in the day, making it much harder to overcome...et cetera. You know what I mean.

Or, perhaps, maybe- just MAYBE- Jews possessed intellectual skill-sets that allowed them to be immediately relevant and succeed once they were no longer enslaved (or, being marched into ovens, building pyramids, etc, etc, etc)? And maybe- just MAYBE- blacks don't posses those same intellectual skills to the same disproportion that Jews do?

[CaneBrain 95]

Or, perhaps, maybe- just MAYBE- Jews possessed intellectual skill-sets that allowed them to be immediately relevant and succeed once they were no longer enslaved (or, being marched into ovens, building pyramids, etc, etc, etc)? And maybe- just MAYBE- blacks don't posses those same intellectual skills to the same disproportion that Jews do?

it's so obvious you wish you were Jewish.

[mk 11]

so we're blaming people who were chronically treated as subhumans for centuries, and up until very recently, for displaying some inveterate effects of said treatment.just so we're clear.

[AmScray 355]

so we're blaming people who were chronically treated as subhumans for centuries, and up until very recently, for displaying some inveterate effects of said treatment.just so we're clear.

Why do you suppose it was that they were historically viewed in that fashion by Europeans (and pretty much every other race)?I mean, surely, prior to this golden age of egalitarianism we've been enjoying for the past 40 years or so, certainly, there MUST have been some compelling reason to view them as equals, right? And since time immemorial, all those Europeans (and Asians, and Indians, and Mestizos) just weren't 'getting it' on the apparent equality of sub-Saharan Africans?Like, a bunch of European explorers landed on the shores of Africa, witnessed a grand civilization replete with fantastic technologies and brilliant people and said to themselves "Man, we have to put a stop to this! GET THE CHAINS!"Something like that?

[speedz99 145]

Or, perhaps, maybe- just MAYBE- Jews possessed intellectual skill-sets that allowed them to be immediately relevant and succeed once they were no longer enslaved (or, being marched into ovens, building pyramids, etc, etc, etc)? And maybe- just MAYBE- blacks don't posses those same intellectual skills to the same disproportion that Jews do?

Maybe.

Why do you suppose it was that they were historically viewed in that fashion by Europeans (and pretty much every other race)?

Being a few thousand years behind other cultures in terms of technology and social structure is, in the grand scheme of things, not proof of anything. There are a lot of factors involved in that kind of thing. Just because other races deemed them inferior and used that designation as an excuse to enslave them doesn't make it TRUE FACT that black people are, in fact, inferior. And everything that's happened since the Europeans started ****ing with them has only served to perpetuate the steriotype, which is why, in my opinion, it's not as clear cut as you seem to think it is.

[mk 11]

Why do you suppose it was that they were historically viewed in that fashion by Europeans (and pretty much every other race)?Something like that?

Nah, more like because they were super fucking racist. And stupid. Along with thinking it standard to enslave those possessed of skin color different from their own they also thought the earth was flat and the center of the universe.

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

they also thought the earth was flat and the center of the universe.

Is this relevant?

[CaneBrain 95]

Nah, more like because they were super fucking racist. And stupid. Along with thinking it standard to enslave those possessed of skin color different from their own they also thought the earth was flat and the center of the universe.

there was no educated person in that era who thought the earth was flat. don't perpetuate the idea that people thought Columbus was sailing off the edge of the world; most educated Europeans had read Copernicus.

[mk 11]

Is this relevant?

If we are to debate the logic or rationale of non-africans enslaving africans for their own ends, I find it rather compelling evidence that much of their thought was actually irrational.So: YES.

[mk 11]

there was no educated person in that era who thought the earth was flat. don't perpetuate the idea that people thought Columbus was sailing off the edge of the wolrd; most educated Europeans had read Copernicus.

the enslavement of africans didn't start in columbus's time

[FCP Bob 1,312]

If we are to debate the logic or rationale of European whites enslaving dark people for their own ends, I find it rather compelling evidence that much of their thought was actually irrational.So: YES.

In the past slavery had very little to do with skin colour and was just basically those who had the power to enslave others did and those without the power becasme slaves. Blacks enslaved Blacks, Native Americans enslaved each other at times and slavery was common on the Indian Subcontinent.Now in those places it was often about Tribalism which is no different than racism just not based on skin colour. You're different, I have the power so you're my slave.