Black Lives Matter Movement

I have answered all of you statements. Every time you reply, you accuse me of disregarding your statements. Please provide an instance. I can"t correct a mistake if you don"t tell me what"s wrong. At any rate, I don"t believe I disregarded any statements. 1st statement: I said Black lives matter is only about blacks. Then I contradicted myself by saying that black on black is not the purpose of the movement. You are misconstruing what I said. When I said that black lives matter is only about blacks, I meant that they are not a movement form any other race. BLM does not fight for Asian rights, or Mexican rights, but black rights. So there are no actual contradictions there, I was talking about two different issues. BLM does care about black on black murders, and violence, but that is not their primary objective. Of course they care. 2nd statement: You did not say that your slogan defines what you do. I quote from your second "Essay," "you follow what you do by your slogan." So you are wrong there. 3rd statement: I disregarded your statement Here you fail to provide the instance, so I can leave that alone. 4th statement: Blacks commit 50 percent of crime. This does not matter. Saying that more blacks are criminals does not prove the absence of a race problem with police in America. This is irrelevant data. 5th statement: You already gave the statistics I asked for. False, I asked for backs data, facts and statistics. Once again it looks like you leave most of your facts not backed by actual sources. I can say here, "100 percent of cops are racist!!" that"s a statistic, but it"s not backed up, and obviously not true. I don"t know if your statistics are true, you haven"t for the most part backed it up. You could have made this stuff up on the spot. You probably didn"t. But I don"t know this, and the 3rd party voters don"t know this. That"s why most of your facts are worthless. Fact #1: This is a completely subjective opinion. You can accuse their motivation, but that is something only they know the real answer too. Fact #2: It would take 40 years for white people to kill as many black people as blacks have killed. Over what span of time? Sure it would take 40 years if we are comparing it to black on black murders for the last 40 years, or 100 years. What is your time span? This statistic is vague. Fact #3: Why in the world would we protest against storms? Storms are not conscious, they don"t decide. No points for being clever on that. Fact #4: Again, we are not talking about civilians killing blacks. BLM is about the Police Vs. the Black Population. And you are again justifying killings with more killings. Fact #5: Once again you are running from the real problem. We can acknowledge all we want that blacks are more likely to be criminals. But this is an entirely different situation. Besides, the BLM are claiming that the African American"s culture is because of the white culture. You need to pull the roots out. The problem is senseless police brutality on blacks. Not the warranted brutality, but the unwarranted. Fact #6: This deserves the same answer as the last fact. Fact #7: 90% of black people aren"t murdered, much less by specifically black people. What are you saying? That black people only have a 1/10 chance of surviving without being murdered. At any rate, I know what you are trying to say. I don"t believe that number is right. But are you saying that 10% is not worth fighting for? Fact #8: Black lives matter doesn't care about black lives. Where"s the beef? You have nothing to back that statement up. You say the movement is racist because I fail to acknowledge the movement doesn"t care about black on black. If I did acknowledge that would the movement be still racist? So where"s your real proof? You say of course police can be racist we don"t live in a Utopian Society. But why should we stop moving towards that, why shouldn"t we always looking to improve? You called me a hypocrite. That should take credibility from you right there. Personal attacks are never good in a debate. Besides, I don"t have to give facts. My movement is innocent until proven guilty. I don"t need to prove its innocence, I need to defend it. It"s my job to respond to your "Incriminating evidence." So far I have debunked you, I don"t need to say anything else. Honestly you sound like a child. You write half of your essay in caps. You rant, you don"t argue, and you definitely aren"t debating. You say a lot of things, but it didn"t mean much. Thank you for "debating" me, -Andrew Cox P.S. I am impressed you used a link to a trusted website. :)