+- THE SOCIAL UNDERGROUND COMMUNITY (https://www.socialunderground.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Boxing (/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Boxing Unfiltered (/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Thread: Potential Mayweather-McGregor numbers. (/showthread.php?tid=2667)
RE: Potential Mayweather-McGregor numbers. - Warlord - 07-17-2017 06:30 PM
(07-17-2017 02:58 PM)Snoop Wrote: Where are you getting your stats from?
U.S. census records. The census records are extremely reliable, because Slave owners had to count their slaves annually for the census bureau, and for good reason. Because population sized determined how many seats a state had in the United States House of Representatives, slave owners had every incentive to list their slave numbers.
Additionally, the higher the number of slaves, the higher the population, thereby giving slave states more votes in the electoral college. For any of you who don't know what the electoral college is, look it up, and you'll understand why slave owners kept extensive records of the number of slaves in their household.
And then look up the Three-Fifths compromise, which the North pushed for to limit the power of the Southern states as a direct counter to what I just mentioned.
Quote:My mention of Johnson being a former slave was not to indicate he came under unique circumstances, rather just to highlight the fact that he was not the first actual slave-owner.
Johnson didn't come to the States as a slave. He came as an indentured servant (which generally lasted for a period of 7 years.) Before Johnson's case there were no slaves in the way we think of slavery today. There were only indentured servants. When Johnson's servant tried to leave, Johnson took him to court and won, which resulted in the first American to be actually be declared a slave. This is what opened the door to full-blown slavery, instead of indentured servitude, which had been the rule before.
Quote:Again, his status of being the first legal slaveowner is an interesting tidbit, but not directly relevant to the discussion.
It is relevant because the question was asked early on whether or not blacks owned slaves, whether or not blacks owned white slaves, whether or not black Americans owned slaves, whether or not black Americans owned black slaves, and whether or not black Americans owned white slaves. The answer is yes to all.
Quote:So I'll admit that this is completely new to me. I had no idea it was even possible for black Americans to own white slaves. That certainly changed a lot of things for me. At the same time, I am also interested in seeing how common this sort of situation occurred. Was it pretty common for blacks to own white slaves, or was Johnson sort of an anomaly? Just because you find one case that doesn't fit the norm, doesn't suddenly invalidate a claim that applies to a majority. At the same time, I am giving you full credit here for the new info. This certainly applies to the debate at hand in your favor.
It was by no means an anomaly. Free blacks owning whites was so common in Virginia, for example, that the state finally had to pass a law against it in 1670.
Quote:Over the years I've certainly realized that leftist ideology is not as genuine or noble as it's propagated to be and have moved considerably right as I've grown older. But I can't say the right is really about unity either.
Of course it is. The right makes no distinctions at all among people. We think all laws should apply to all people equally, regardless of race, religion, or gender. It is the Left that insists on this. Let me give you an example.
Under Ronald Reagan, African-American unemployment fell from 19.5 percent in 1983 to 11.4 percent in 1989. Black-owned businesses saw income rise from $12.4 billion in 1982 to $18.1 billion in 1987 — an annual average growth rate of 7.9 percent. The black middle class expanded by one-third during the Reagan years, from 3.6 million to 4.8 million.
Blacks saw their incomes rise by 7.9% a year! When we see that growth rate coming out of China economists rightly label it as an unbelievably astounding economic miracle. But Leftists constantly howl about what an evil, racist president Reagan was.
When you ask them for an example, they inevitable point out the "war on drugs." They claim it is and was a racist policy that targeted and continues to target blacks.
Of course, this is a perfect example of the bigotry of the left. The only way the war on drugs could unfairly target blacks is if you assume that blacks are inherently more likely to commit crimes and use illegal drugs than other races.
And this is the same of all the Left's policies. Leftists lower academic standards for blacks, and create programs that allow blacks to enter top tier colleges with test scores that would disqualify whites immediately. This kind of policy only makes sense if you inherently believe blacks are stupider and less capable than whites are of working hard and making good grades.
I could go on, and will do if asked, but I think these examples should suffice.
Quote:This is a fair point. I think it's worth considering, however, that the racism and oppression against Irish were committed by other white Europeans and not American blacks. Or at least, American blacks did not have the sort of power to create a media system that was able to influence the country the way it was done against them.
I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Blacks owned white slaves, and owned black slaves at a much higher percentage than whites did. Government, media, and academia has been on the side of black America since the civil rights movement.
We are now at a point in American history where it is acceptable for blacks or any other non-white race to be openly racist towards whites with impunity. The days of blacks being victims has long been over, and it is high time everyone realize it.
Quote:I'm also curious to know if there was anything akin to the lynching era that was done upon European immigrants.
Some interest facts on lynching:
From 1882-1968, 3,446 black people were lynched, and 1,297 white people were lynched.
The irony is that over 1,400 more black Americans murdered other blacks in the last two years alone than were lynched from 1882 to 1968!
Even worse, an average of 4,472 black men were killed by other black men annually between Jan. 1, 2009, and Dec. 31, 2012. At the current rate that police are currently killing black criminals, it would take cops 40 years to kill as many black men as have died at the hands of others black men in 2012 alone.
If people really cared about the black community, it seems to me, they'd be focused on the here and now. If black lives really mattered at all, the Left would focus its energies on actually creating policies that benefit black people, instead of waging war on ghosts of the past.
Quote:I'll check it out. Was the Scorsese flick based on this book?
Yep. The movie wasn't very good, but history channel also did a special on the Gangs of New York which was excellent.
Quote:Curious to know what you think of the movie "Glory" and its historical accuracy.
Never saw it, couldn't say.
Quote:I certainly knew American Indians enslaved those they defeated in battle and I get that enslaving people isn't specifically a "white" thing. On that note, I understand why it's extremely frustrating that liberal media frames slavery as if it's only a trait within white people. My thing is when response goes too far in the other direction and there are active deniers of slavery, or those who try to minimize the after-effects of human atrocity. Overall though, I appreciate the info being discussed in this thread.
I've never actually met anyone who denied slavery or the evils of slavery, and I know no one in the media has. The Left isn't interested in the truth, and they aren't combating racism. They are pushing a narrative for their own selfish ends.
Quote:I think one thing to be clarified is that this whole debate started because of Black's comment and I may have jumped the gun assuming he was talking about white Americans, when he could have been just talking about McGregor. In light of this discussion, I'll say that people calling McGregor "racist" in his antics should probably educate themselves more American/European history. They'd probably change their tune.
Unfortunately educating oneself is the only option, as sadly we can no longer depend on the education system to do it. We don't even have an education system. We have an indoctrination system.
RE: Potential Mayweather-McGregor numbers. - Imperius3 - 07-17-2017 07:32 PM
(07-17-2017 10:01 AM)Warlord Wrote: @Imperius
The other 98.6% of the white population were people who didn't own slaves.
Okay, I understand you now. The majority of whites were not slave owners, but the majority of slave owners were white.
Here's B-Hop's opinion on the Circus Fight (and also GGG-Canelo):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8GybKGh1yk
RE: Potential Mayweather-McGregor numbers. - Warlord - 07-17-2017 08:28 PM
(07-17-2017 07:32 PM)Imperius3 Wrote: Okay, I understand you now. The majority of whites were not slave owners, but the majority of slave owners were white.
Depends on how you want to define majority. Total numbers rarely tell the whole story. Per capita is a better indicator of behavior when it comes to numbers.
For instance, 2/3 of Americans live in the middle to upper class, while 1/3 are in the lower class (with very, very few actually living in poverty as most think of the word, and fewer still who are homeless.)
In China, 2/3 of the population live in the lower class, while 1/3 are in the middle class or above. In total numbers China has more people living in the middle class than the U.S., but that's not an accurate or fair comparison considering the population sizes.
Yes, more whites owned slaves than blacks. But of the total free white population, only 1.4% owned slaves at the height of slavery. Nearly 30% of free blacks owned slaves during that same time period. I think that is a pretty remarkable figure, especially when you have the entirety of the Left, from the Americas to Asia to Europe, demanding that white America alone should bear the guilt of slavery, when each and every one of them contributed more to that sin than did America.
RE: Potential Mayweather-McGregor numbers. - JD - 07-17-2017 08:55 PM
This pile of shit will do 5.5 million buys.
RE: Potential Mayweather-McGregor numbers. - Dickagon - 07-18-2017 02:40 AM
It's actually really weird how much shit we get for slavery. I can understand segregation but that only affected part of the US.
RE: Potential Mayweather-McGregor numbers. - Warlord - 07-18-2017 05:53 AM
(07-18-2017 02:40 AM)Dickagon Wrote: It's actually really weird how much shit we get for slavery. I can understand segregation but that only affected part of the US.
And now the American left is doing everything they can to bring segregation back.
RE: Potential Mayweather-McGregor numbers. - Spyder - 07-18-2017 09:29 PM
So according to this, you get plus money betting on Mayweather winning by KO?
Someone that knows betting, please explain to me what 2/3 means.
Quote:Here are some other betting possibilities from Bovada:
Will Conor McGregor throw a kick in the match?
Yes +1100 (11/1)
No -6500 (1/65)
Will there be a point deducted?
Yes +350 (7/2)
No -600 (1/6)
Will both fighters be knocked down?
Yes +600 (6/1)
No -1600 (1/16)
Will either fighter be knocked down or out?
Yes -375 (4/15)
No +240 (12/5)
Will Floyd Mayweather Jr. be knocked down or out?
Yes +350 (7/2)
No -600 (1/6)
Will Conor McGregor be knocked down or out?
Yes -300 (1/3)
No +200 (2/1)
Total rounds
Over 9.5 +125 (5/4)
Under 9.5 -175 (4/7)
Will the fight go the distance?
Yes +160 (16/10)
No -230 (10/23)
Method of victory
Mayweather Jr. by KO, TKO or DQ 2/3
Mayweather Jr. by Decision or Technical Decision 5/2
McGregor by KO, TKO or DQ 4/1
McGregor by Decision or Technical Decision 10/1
Draw or Technical Draw 50/1
Floyd Mayweather Jr. by Knockout 3/1
Floyd Mayweather Jr. by Majority Decision 28/1
Floyd Mayweather Jr. by Split Decision 28/1
Floyd Mayweather Jr. by Technical Decision 80/1
Floyd Mayweather Jr. by Technical Knockout 5/2
Floyd Mayweather Jr. by Unanimous Decision 7/4
Floyd Mayweather Jr. by Disqualified Opponent 10/1
Conor McGregor by Disqualified Opponent 50/1
Conor McGregor by Knockout 7/1
Conor McGregor by Majority Decision 70/1
Conor McGregor by Split Decision 100/1
Conor McGregor by Technical Decision 100/1
Conor McGregor by Technical Knockout 8/1
Conor McGregor by Unanimous Decision 66/1
Draw 33/1
What minute will the fight end in?
1st Minute 20/1
2nd Minute 25/1
3rd Minute 25/1
4th Minute 40/1
5th Minute 40/1
6th Minute 28/1
7th Minute 40/1
8th Minute 40/1
9th Minute 25/1
10th Minute 40/1
11th Minute 28/1
12th Minute 25/1
13th Minute 40/1
14th Minute 28/1
15th Minute 25/1
16th Minute 28/1
17th Minute 28/1
18th Minute 25/1
19th Minute 40/1
20th Minute 33/1
21st Minute 25/1
22nd Minute 40/1
23rd Minute 33/1
24th Minute 25/1
25th Minute 40/1
26th Minute 33/1
27th Minute 25/1
28th Minute 40/1
29th Minute 40/1
30th Minute 22/1
31st Minute 40/1
32nd Minute 40/1
33rd Minute 28/1
34th Minute 40/1
35th Minute 40/1
36th Minute 40/1
Fight Goes Distance 8/5
RE: Potential Mayweather-McGregor numbers. - JD - 07-18-2017 09:56 PM
It means a return of 2 units on every 3 units you wager.
It's basically -150
RE: Potential Mayweather-McGregor numbers. - Imperius3 - 07-18-2017 10:28 PM
5Dimes has Mayweather by stoppage at -175.
Very good odds if you ask me.
RE: Potential Mayweather-McGregor numbers. - Spyder - 07-18-2017 11:20 PM
(07-18-2017 09:56 PM)JD Wrote: It means a return of 2 units on every 3 units you wager.Oh, so that's the worst payout from the top. A Mayweather KO is 3/1 up there, so I'd get $300 for betting $100?
It's basically -150