planetf1.com

It is currently Sat Nov 18, 2017 9:52 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 4:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1568
Seems that the FIA has been funneling money for the past 3 years into Syria to produce propaganda races during the Syrian civil war.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/csylt/2017/09/07/call-for-investigation-into-formula-one-payments-to-syria/#1b29ba5b3605


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 4:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 4265
It's pretty sad when you really look at who basically "owns" motor racing these days...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 7:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 9:20 pm
Posts: 1748
People surely aren't surprised by this.

Bernie's been fleecing dodgy regimes for years. A sport with morals wouldn't go near Bahrain, Russia or Azerbaijan.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 9:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 2537
Location: UK
It's a situation that I feel is much more complex than the headlines will make out. Without even getting into the whole mess of who the 'good guys' actually are in the Syrian conflict (indeed if there are any) it does raise questions about what the FIA, as an apolitical organisation, should get involved in and what they shouldn't. Who gets to decide who the 'acceptable' governments of the world are that the FIA should do business with? I think the comparison highlighted in the article with the humanitarian aid provided to Syria by the Red Cross is a valid one.

I guess it's a situation that the FIA should have avoided purely because of the headlines that it will generate in certain quarters, regardless of any actual rights or wrongs of the situation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 11:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1568
j man wrote:
It's a situation that I feel is much more complex than the headlines will make out. Without even getting into the whole mess of who the 'good guys' actually are in the Syrian conflict (indeed if there are any) it does raise questions about what the FIA, as an apolitical organisation, should get involved in and what they shouldn't. Who gets to decide who the 'acceptable' governments of the world are that the FIA should do business with?


I tend to think that the FIA should avoid dealing with countries that have, on multiple occasions, gassed thousands of their own citizens.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 09, 2017 2:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 1:23 pm
Posts: 47
Perhaps F1 could set limits on how much gas is allowed to be used just like they do for the cars during a Formula 1 race.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 09, 2017 8:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 2537
Location: UK
Herb Tarlik wrote:
j man wrote:
It's a situation that I feel is much more complex than the headlines will make out. Without even getting into the whole mess of who the 'good guys' actually are in the Syrian conflict (indeed if there are any) it does raise questions about what the FIA, as an apolitical organisation, should get involved in and what they shouldn't. Who gets to decide who the 'acceptable' governments of the world are that the FIA should do business with?


I tend to think that the FIA should avoid dealing with countries that have, on multiple occasions, gassed thousands of their own citizens.

What about countries that have, on multiple occasions, killed thousands of other countries' citizens?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 09, 2017 11:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:39 am
Posts: 1299
GingerFurball wrote:
People surely aren't surprised by this.

Bernie's been fleecing dodgy regimes for years. A sport with morals wouldn't go near Bahrain, Russia or Azerbaijan.


Exactly. That alone is a disgrace.

_________________
Winner of the [Charging Hamilton Trophy] !
Winner of the [Dominant Hamilton Trophy] !

Lewis Hamilton 4 x WDC


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 09, 2017 11:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1568
j man wrote:
Herb Tarlik wrote:
j man wrote:
It's a situation that I feel is much more complex than the headlines will make out. Without even getting into the whole mess of who the 'good guys' actually are in the Syrian conflict (indeed if there are any) it does raise questions about what the FIA, as an apolitical organisation, should get involved in and what they shouldn't. Who gets to decide who the 'acceptable' governments of the world are that the FIA should do business with?


I tend to think that the FIA should avoid dealing with countries that have, on multiple occasions, gassed thousands of their own citizens.

What about countries that have, on multiple occasions, killed thousands of other countries' citizens?


Every single grand prix would be cancelled then. Smart, isn't it?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 10, 2017 12:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 2:53 pm
Posts: 1357
Location: Canada
Disgraceful.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 10, 2017 1:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 1549
Location: Miami, Florida
j man wrote:
Herb Tarlik wrote:
j man wrote:
It's a situation that I feel is much more complex than the headlines will make out. Without even getting into the whole mess of who the 'good guys' actually are in the Syrian conflict (indeed if there are any) it does raise questions about what the FIA, as an apolitical organisation, should get involved in and what they shouldn't. Who gets to decide who the 'acceptable' governments of the world are that the FIA should do business with?


I tend to think that the FIA should avoid dealing with countries that have, on multiple occasions, gassed thousands of their own citizens.

What about countries that have, on multiple occasions, killed thousands of other countries' citizens?

Funny when Hugo Chavez died and I said good riddance I received a ton of flack for it. Then the discussion got deeper and it led to his life idol and mentor and when I spoke about his genocial regime and I was met with ignorant disdain and contempt. I mean my brother in law's father used to supply the food to every base there and he'd continually witness lineups of dozens of men being mow d down with automatic weapons and then bulldozed into giant mass pits before being buried with dirt, some of the men still alive as the light was suddenly turned off on them.

I feel that every country that is governed by oppressive and/or controlling regimes should be excluded from hosting or partaking in sporting and entertainment type events that benefit them financially. I mean if their ideals are that, of government owns and/or dictates all, and the people are mere prisoners/slaves of those regimes, why should they be allowed to put on a phony face to portray themselves as a wonderful bunch of people?

_________________
HAMILTON :: VETTEL :: ROSBERG :: RAIKKONEN :: VERSTAPPEN :: SAINZ :: MASSA :: BOTTAS :: NASR
ALONSO :: BUTTON :: PEREZ :: RICCIARDO :: GROSJEAN :: KVYAT :: HULKENBERG :: MALDONADO
THE REST… THERE ARE FAR BETTER DRIVERS THAT SHOULD BE IN FORMULA 1


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 10, 2017 2:27 pm 
Online

Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 1656
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
j man wrote:
Herb Tarlik wrote:
j man wrote:
It's a situation that I feel is much more complex than the headlines will make out. Without even getting into the whole mess of who the 'good guys' actually are in the Syrian conflict (indeed if there are any) it does raise questions about what the FIA, as an apolitical organisation, should get involved in and what they shouldn't. Who gets to decide who the 'acceptable' governments of the world are that the FIA should do business with?


I tend to think that the FIA should avoid dealing with countries that have, on multiple occasions, gassed thousands of their own citizens.

What about countries that have, on multiple occasions, killed thousands of other countries' citizens?

Funny when Hugo Chavez died and I said good riddance I received a ton of flack for it. Then the discussion got deeper and it led to his life idol and mentor and when I spoke about his genocial regime and I was met with ignorant disdain and contempt. I mean my brother in law's father used to supply the food to every base there and he'd continually witness lineups of dozens of men being mow d down with automatic weapons and then bulldozed into giant mass pits before being buried with dirt, some of the men still alive as the light was suddenly turned off on them.

I feel that every country that is governed by oppressive and/or controlling regimes should be excluded from hosting or partaking in sporting and entertainment type events that benefit them financially. I mean if their ideals are that, of government owns and/or dictates all, and the people are mere prisoners/slaves of those regimes, why should they be allowed to put on a phony face to portray themselves as a wonderful bunch of people?


Different people have very different views of right and wrong. Who's version should we follow when it comes to picking hosts for races?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 10, 2017 2:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 2537
Location: UK
Herb Tarlik wrote:
j man wrote:
Herb Tarlik wrote:
j man wrote:
It's a situation that I feel is much more complex than the headlines will make out. Without even getting into the whole mess of who the 'good guys' actually are in the Syrian conflict (indeed if there are any) it does raise questions about what the FIA, as an apolitical organisation, should get involved in and what they shouldn't. Who gets to decide who the 'acceptable' governments of the world are that the FIA should do business with?


I tend to think that the FIA should avoid dealing with countries that have, on multiple occasions, gassed thousands of their own citizens.

What about countries that have, on multiple occasions, killed thousands of other countries' citizens?


Every single grand prix would be cancelled then. Smart, isn't it?

Exactly my point. So where do you draw that line of acceptability?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 10, 2017 4:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 1549
Location: Miami, Florida
Killing, stealing & unjustified imprisonment are wrong, period. There's no debatable gray area in any of those, at least to my knowledge and nothing can justify it to any degree.

Even though some cultures have practices that have existed for centuries it doesn't mean they are justified just because some folks agree, but idk, maybe I'm wrong. I mean ignoramous nazi supporters feel Hitler's actions were perfectly fine/acceptable so I guess we should all excuse it as acceptable because so many people believe such ignorance & hatred is justified.

_________________
HAMILTON :: VETTEL :: ROSBERG :: RAIKKONEN :: VERSTAPPEN :: SAINZ :: MASSA :: BOTTAS :: NASR
ALONSO :: BUTTON :: PEREZ :: RICCIARDO :: GROSJEAN :: KVYAT :: HULKENBERG :: MALDONADO
THE REST… THERE ARE FAR BETTER DRIVERS THAT SHOULD BE IN FORMULA 1


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 10, 2017 5:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1568
j man wrote:
Herb Tarlik wrote:
j man wrote:
Herb Tarlik wrote:
j man wrote:
It's a situation that I feel is much more complex than the headlines will make out. Without even getting into the whole mess of who the 'good guys' actually are in the Syrian conflict (indeed if there are any) it does raise questions about what the FIA, as an apolitical organisation, should get involved in and what they shouldn't. Who gets to decide who the 'acceptable' governments of the world are that the FIA should do business with?


I tend to think that the FIA should avoid dealing with countries that have, on multiple occasions, gassed thousands of their own citizens.

What about countries that have, on multiple occasions, killed thousands of other countries' citizens?


Every single grand prix would be cancelled then. Smart, isn't it?

Exactly my point. So where do you draw that line of acceptability?


I draw the line at countries that use poison gas on their own citizens, killing thousands. Multiple times.

I'm just weird about this sort of thing. You may think different.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 10, 2017 7:14 pm 
Online

Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 1656
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
Killing, stealing & unjustified imprisonment are wrong, period. There's no debatable gray area in any of those, at least to my knowledge and nothing can justify it to any degree.

Even though some cultures have practices that have existed for centuries it doesn't mean they are justified just because some folks agree, but idk, maybe I'm wrong. I mean ignoramous nazi supporters feel Hitler's actions were perfectly fine/acceptable so I guess we should all excuse it as acceptable because so many people believe such ignorance & hatred is justified.


I agree. But I also think locking up millions of poor, black men for life over minor crimes is absolutely horrific. :) I disagree with the bombing of innocent foreigners over geopolitics and lies. I'm struggling to think of a country or government who I don't find reprehensible, basically we'd have a few races in the Scandinavian countries and that would be us for the year.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 2:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2015 10:33 am
Posts: 178
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Not sure if this should go in unpopular opinions or here......

Getting involved in politics is something that F1 shouldn't be in. I don't think it matters who runs the country and how.
As long as the location is safe for F1 fans, teams and drivers, IMHO that's the biggest thing F1 should worry about. Even so, Some countries now are rather unsafe, Brazil isn't that safe, Neither is Mexico, Hell even America.

Every single Government in any country has got skeletons in the closet. EVERY SINGLE ONE. You'd be naive to think anything else.
Lets go with a few Western examples, As i assume all of you would think that 1st world countries are 100% OK. ( To race in )
USA: Well where shall we start? Guantanamo Bay? The NSA Surveillance that Edward Snowden leaked? The racial profiling of Police in regards to Blacks and Hispanics?

UK: Cash for Influence? Going to war with the US in Iraq? ( AKA Chilcot inquiry ) Julian Assange?

Australia: Children Overboard? The treatment and hazing in the Defence Forces? The treatment of Aborigines today and in the past?

Look I could go on with any other Western country too ( And a lot further with the countries I mentioned ) and thats just the stuff we KNOW about, You could bet that theres a whole heap of stuff we don't know.

Look at the Rio Olympics, Even Olympians were held up and robbed. Interlagos is a well loved track too.

My point is that NO country is innocent from crimes against their own citizens. Yes, Some are worse than others, No doubt.

F1 is a business, They are going to go where the money is. Thats kinda the deal with Capitalism.

Let's say you lived in Azerbaijan, F1 announces they are considering a race in Baku. So you start saving your pennies, bit by bit.
Now, Lets say that because F1 doesn't want to be associated with the Azerbaijan regime they decide to cancel the race.
That race that F1 decided NOT to go to for political reasons may have just been your only respite from the BS of living in Baku. A weekend in a year where you don't think about how oppressive it is to live there, You just focus on the race and the cars. Wouldn't that be great?

Another flip-side is that F1's going to countries like this shines a light on how corrupt these countries are... I gotta be honest, I didn't know how bad Azerbaijan was until the F1's raced there. GOING to these places encourages discussion and possibly action our Governments in doing something to help those people living in Countries like that. Once again Rio was shown to be a FAR worse place when building commenced for the Olympics and how they treated their poorer Citizens.

I realise this opinion isn't going to be popular. But pretending that Western ( Or heavily Westernised ) countries are basically fine is an absolute crock.

_________________
Any and all opinions are my own, they do not reflect the opinions of the FIA, FOM, Teams, Drivers, PlanetF1, Phase of the Moon, Rotation of the Earth or Aliens.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 3:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 4393
Location: Michigan, USA
jasonthebadger wrote:
Not sure if this should go in unpopular opinions or here......

Getting involved in politics is something that F1 shouldn't be in. I don't think it matters who runs the country and how.
As long as the location is safe for F1 fans, teams and drivers, IMHO that's the biggest thing F1 should worry about. Even so, Some countries now are rather unsafe, Brazil isn't that safe, Neither is Mexico, Hell even America.

...

My personal opinion is that F1 should only avoid countries that are patently unsafe (Syria, for example) or actually illegitimate (North Korea, for example). Hosting a GP in a country - or any other international event - does have the effect of legitimizing the nation to a certain extent, and there are countries I feel shouldn't be legitimized. I might include the USA on that list if Trump actually had anything to do with the GP.

However, if the government is corrupt but legal, or the country is pursuing an unpopular policy, etc. then I don't feel it's the business of a sport to act as moral judge. Nobody is going to look at Sochi and think 'Oh, F1 is racing in Russia! That must mean Putin isn't actually suppressing people's rights and meddling in the affairs of foreign countries all over the all hail the mods place!' or COTA and think 'Wow, so F1 is racing in America! I guess Trump really isn't a fascist Nazi-wannabe after all!'. I really don't think these big sporting events change anything about the way people look at the government of a real country, so I don't think there's any harm in that regard.

Although that is assuming a model where the money from the GP doesn't go directly to the government. If it does, and the regime is corrupt, then I suppose you could make a case that they're supporting an evil regime. I really don't think F1 should deal directly with governments.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2017: Don't Ask| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
Wins: 3 | Podiums: 11

PF1 Top Three Constructor's Championship
2015 (No Limit Excedrin Racing): CHAMPIONS


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 3:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2015 10:33 am
Posts: 178
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Exediron wrote:
Although that is assuming a model where the money from the GP doesn't go directly to the government. If it does, and the regime is corrupt, then I suppose you could make a case that they're supporting an evil regime. I really don't think F1 should deal directly with governments.


The problem is that Track owners don't make much ( if anything, hello Silverstone! ) to make it worthwhile.

Governments make the events happen. Even if a TO made the event happen ( hello again Silverstone! ) It's the Governments that pocket the most due to Tourism and Tax from said event. Corrupt or not, Governments will always gain more than most unfortunately.

_________________
Any and all opinions are my own, they do not reflect the opinions of the FIA, FOM, Teams, Drivers, PlanetF1, Phase of the Moon, Rotation of the Earth or Aliens.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 3:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 4393
Location: Michigan, USA
jasonthebadger wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Although that is assuming a model where the money from the GP doesn't go directly to the government. If it does, and the regime is corrupt, then I suppose you could make a case that they're supporting an evil regime. I really don't think F1 should deal directly with governments.

The problem is that Track owners don't make much ( if anything, hello Silverstone! ) to make it worthwhile.

That's because F1 hosting fees are criminal. A GP track makes millions; it's because of the punitive fees that they need government assistance to break even.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2017: Don't Ask| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
Wins: 3 | Podiums: 11

PF1 Top Three Constructor's Championship
2015 (No Limit Excedrin Racing): CHAMPIONS


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 6:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12274
Exediron wrote:
jasonthebadger wrote:
Not sure if this should go in unpopular opinions or here......

Getting involved in politics is something that F1 shouldn't be in. I don't think it matters who runs the country and how.
As long as the location is safe for F1 fans, teams and drivers, IMHO that's the biggest thing F1 should worry about. Even so, Some countries now are rather unsafe, Brazil isn't that safe, Neither is Mexico, Hell even America.

...

My personal opinion is that F1 should only avoid countries that are patently unsafe (Syria, for example) or actually illegitimate (North Korea, for example). Hosting a GP in a country - or any other international event - does have the effect of legitimizing the nation to a certain extent, and there are countries I feel shouldn't be legitimized. I might include the USA on that list if Trump actually had anything to do with the GP.

However, if the government is corrupt but legal, or the country is pursuing an unpopular policy, etc. then I don't feel it's the business of a sport to act as moral judge. Nobody is going to look at Sochi and think 'Oh, F1 is racing in Russia! That must mean Putin isn't actually suppressing people's rights and meddling in the affairs of foreign countries all over the all hail the mods place!' or COTA and think 'Wow, so F1 is racing in America! I guess Trump really isn't a fascist Nazi-wannabe after all!'. I really don't think these big sporting events change anything about the way people look at the government of a real country, so I don't think there's any harm in that regard.

Although that is assuming a model where the money from the GP doesn't go directly to the government. If it does, and the regime is corrupt, then I suppose you could make a case that they're supporting an evil regime. I really don't think F1 should deal directly with governments.


The issue is that once you go down the route of removing involvement from some countries for political reasons you tacitly condone all other regimes that you continue to be involved with.

By not allowing politics to be a factor you can continue to appear neutral.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 7:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 4393
Location: Michigan, USA
mikeyg123 wrote:
The issue is that once you go down the route of removing involvement from some countries for political reasons you tacitly condone all other regimes that you continue to be involved with.

By not allowing politics to be a factor you can continue to appear neutral.

I don't think that having a standard for removing a country means you condone the rest. If you forbid a convicted murderer from doing something, you're not condoning everyone who isn't a murderer - you're just saying that there's a certain line you can't cross, and the others haven't crossed it yet.

America, Britain, Australia, etc. have all done things that we don't necessarily approve of. But that doesn't mean they can't be separated from countries like Syria, North Korea or (now) Turkey.

By not allowing politics to be a factor you certainly do become neutral. But neutrality is what lets evil thrive, so I don't necessarily see it as something to be valued that highly.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2017: Don't Ask| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
Wins: 3 | Podiums: 11

PF1 Top Three Constructor's Championship
2015 (No Limit Excedrin Racing): CHAMPIONS


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 12:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 9:20 pm
Posts: 1748
jasonthebadger wrote:
Not sure if this should go in unpopular opinions or here......

Getting involved in politics is something that F1 shouldn't be in. I don't think it matters who runs the country and how.

What the 'sport and politics shouldn't mix' brigade fail to understand is that the likes of Putin use sport as a political statement. Hosting F1 races (Putin's access to the drivers is unprecedented compared to other heads of state), winter Olympics, World Cups are all political statements designed to promote Russia. Ditto Bahrain.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 1:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1568
GingerFurball wrote:
jasonthebadger wrote:
Not sure if this should go in unpopular opinions or here......

Getting involved in politics is something that F1 shouldn't be in. I don't think it matters who runs the country and how.

What the 'sport and politics shouldn't mix' brigade fail to understand is that the likes of Putin use sport as a political statement. Hosting F1 races (Putin's access to the drivers is unprecedented compared to other heads of state), winter Olympics, World Cups are all political statements designed to promote Russia. Ditto Bahrain.


Ditto China.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 5:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 1549
Location: Miami, Florida
Ennis wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
Killing, stealing & unjustified imprisonment are wrong, period. There's no debatable gray area in any of those, at least to my knowledge and nothing can justify it to any degree.

Even though some cultures have practices that have existed for centuries it doesn't mean they are justified just because some folks agree, but idk, maybe I'm wrong. I mean ignoramous nazi supporters feel Hitler's actions were perfectly fine/acceptable so I guess we should all excuse it as acceptable because so many people believe such ignorance & hatred is justified.


I agree. But I also think locking up millions of poor, black men for life over minor crimes is absolutely horrific. :) I disagree with the bombing of innocent foreigners over geopolitics and lies. I'm struggling to think of a country or government who I don't find reprehensible, basically we'd have a few races in the Scandinavian countries and that would be us for the year.

If you're alluding to the U.S. in regards to black men being incarcerated for minor crimes, yes that is true in some cases but the reality is that most of those petty crimes, just as in any other "free" country are punished accordingly with a slap on the wrist.

If that's indeed the case, I suspect you've fallen prey to total and utter BS that many people fall for hook, line and sinker. The factual reality is that the vast majority of prison inmates in the U.S. are indeed Anglo Saxon and they too have approximately the same percentage of people incarcerated for petty crimes.

I really hate the rest of the world dumping on the U.S. based on false and/or incorrect information. I don't hear the rest of the world dumping on other countries based on such inaccuracies passed off as fact, but then again, the rest of the world is so obsessed with us.

_________________
HAMILTON :: VETTEL :: ROSBERG :: RAIKKONEN :: VERSTAPPEN :: SAINZ :: MASSA :: BOTTAS :: NASR
ALONSO :: BUTTON :: PEREZ :: RICCIARDO :: GROSJEAN :: KVYAT :: HULKENBERG :: MALDONADO
THE REST… THERE ARE FAR BETTER DRIVERS THAT SHOULD BE IN FORMULA 1


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 6:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 4393
Location: Michigan, USA
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
If that's indeed the case, I suspect you've fallen prey to total and utter BS that many people fall for hook, line and sinker. The factual reality is that the vast majority of prison inmates in the U.S. are indeed Anglo Saxon and they too have approximately the same percentage of people incarcerated for petty crimes.

This is not true according to our own data, published by the government - the Bureau of Prisons lists the following (for federal prisons, obviously):

White - 109,502 inmates (58.6%)
Black - 70,584 inmates (37.8%)
Native American - 4,057 inmates (2.2%)
Asian - 2,766 inmates (1.5%)

That's a majority for whites, but not a vast one. And when you compare it to the racial spread of the country, it looks a bit different:

White alone, percent, July 1, 2016, (V2016)(a) 76.9%
Black or African American alone, percent, July 1, 2016, (V2016)(a) 13.3%
Asian alone, percent, July 1, 2016, (V2016)(a) 5.7%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone, percent, July 1, 2016, (V2016)(a) 1.3%

The percent of white inmates in the prisons is noticeably lower than the percentage of whites in the country. By comparison, the percentage of black inmates is almost three times as high as would be expected with an even representation. Native Americans are also incarcerated at a rate beyond their share of the population, while Asians are disproportionately unlikely to be incarcerated.

So there's at least a few actual facts that don't seem to support your argument.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2017: Don't Ask| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
Wins: 3 | Podiums: 11

PF1 Top Three Constructor's Championship
2015 (No Limit Excedrin Racing): CHAMPIONS


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 6:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 1549
Location: Miami, Florida
It never ceases to amaze me how quickly people run to google stuff just to make themselves look superiorly informed via posting whatever the first thing they find in their search results. Did you even think to question your findings thoroughly before running to post that??!??

Simple math would tell you that info is more than questionable.

_________________
HAMILTON :: VETTEL :: ROSBERG :: RAIKKONEN :: VERSTAPPEN :: SAINZ :: MASSA :: BOTTAS :: NASR
ALONSO :: BUTTON :: PEREZ :: RICCIARDO :: GROSJEAN :: KVYAT :: HULKENBERG :: MALDONADO
THE REST… THERE ARE FAR BETTER DRIVERS THAT SHOULD BE IN FORMULA 1


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 8:00 am 
Online

Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 1656
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
Ennis wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
Killing, stealing & unjustified imprisonment are wrong, period. There's no debatable gray area in any of those, at least to my knowledge and nothing can justify it to any degree.

Even though some cultures have practices that have existed for centuries it doesn't mean they are justified just because some folks agree, but idk, maybe I'm wrong. I mean ignoramous nazi supporters feel Hitler's actions were perfectly fine/acceptable so I guess we should all excuse it as acceptable because so many people believe such ignorance & hatred is justified.


I agree. But I also think locking up millions of poor, black men for life over minor crimes is absolutely horrific. :) I disagree with the bombing of innocent foreigners over geopolitics and lies. I'm struggling to think of a country or government who I don't find reprehensible, basically we'd have a few races in the Scandinavian countries and that would be us for the year.

If you're alluding to the U.S. in regards to black men being incarcerated for minor crimes, yes that is true in some cases but the reality is that most of those petty crimes, just as in any other "free" country are punished accordingly with a slap on the wrist.

If that's indeed the case, I suspect you've fallen prey to total and utter BS that many people fall for hook, line and sinker. The factual reality is that the vast majority of prison inmates in the U.S. are indeed Anglo Saxon and they too have approximately the same percentage of people incarcerated for petty crimes.

I really hate the rest of the world dumping on the U.S. based on false and/or incorrect information. I don't hear the rest of the world dumping on other countries based on such inaccuracies passed off as fact, but then again, the rest of the world is so obsessed with us.


I think you're missing the point - even if I think you're out on your point about black vs white prison population (there's massively disproportionate amount of blacks in prison compared to population, but I believe this is a matter of poverty rather than race - its easy to lock up a bunch of poor people for a long time for minor, but repeated, offences) :)

This isn't a dig at the US. We all have our own standards. Everyone has very different standards. What is absolutely ok with you, could be an absolute abomination to someone else. You have no right to enforce your view of what is right and wrong based on your own upbringing and culture, just as I have no right to dictate what is right and wrong based on mine.

In isolation I don't think anyone would disagree that gassing your population is wrong. But even who has been guilty of the use of chemical weapons recently is disputed. If you follow some of the non-mainstream journalists, or even if you follow some who are based outside of our wonderful Western world, you start to get a much more complex view of the picture of what is really happening. And bear in mind our own glorious countries continue to fund, and arm, all in an effort to push our own agenda. What's a few dead foreigners, eh? As long as we all maintain our position in the world.

As soon as you draw one line, you can't just draw one line. You need to start drawing many lines, and then you will very quickly find yourself being political, acting on your own version of right and wrong, or isolating a lot of people.


Last edited by Ennis on Tue Sep 12, 2017 8:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 8:03 am 
Online

Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 1656
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
It never ceases to amaze me how quickly people run to google stuff just to make themselves look superiorly informed via posting whatever the first thing they find in their search results. Did you even think to question your findings thoroughly before running to post that??!??

Simple math would tell you that info is more than questionable.


Multiple sources all back up his broader point, even if the exact numbers can differ slightly. When you look beyond just federal prisons, you notice this anomaly even more.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 10:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1568
Exediron wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
If that's indeed the case, I suspect you've fallen prey to total and utter BS that many people fall for hook, line and sinker. The factual reality is that the vast majority of prison inmates in the U.S. are indeed Anglo Saxon and they too have approximately the same percentage of people incarcerated for petty crimes.

This is not true according to our own data, published by the government - the Bureau of Prisons lists the following (for federal prisons, obviously):

White - 109,502 inmates (58.6%)
Black - 70,584 inmates (37.8%)
Native American - 4,057 inmates (2.2%)
Asian - 2,766 inmates (1.5%)

That's a majority for whites, but not a vast one. And when you compare it to the racial spread of the country, it looks a bit different:

White alone, percent, July 1, 2016, (V2016)(a) 76.9%
Black or African American alone, percent, July 1, 2016, (V2016)(a) 13.3%
Asian alone, percent, July 1, 2016, (V2016)(a) 5.7%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone, percent, July 1, 2016, (V2016)(a) 1.3%

The percent of white inmates in the prisons is noticeably lower than the percentage of whites in the country. By comparison, the percentage of black inmates is almost three times as high as would be expected with an even representation. Native Americans are also incarcerated at a rate beyond their share of the population, while Asians are disproportionately unlikely to be incarcerated.

So there's at least a few actual facts that don't seem to support your argument.


These numbers cannot be right. Where are the Hispanics? The above percentages add up to 97.2% and the Hispanic population exceeds the black.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 12:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:11 am
Posts: 882
Herb Tarlik wrote:
Exediron wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
If that's indeed the case, I suspect you've fallen prey to total and utter BS that many people fall for hook, line and sinker. The factual reality is that the vast majority of prison inmates in the U.S. are indeed Anglo Saxon and they too have approximately the same percentage of people incarcerated for petty crimes.

This is not true according to our own data, published by the government - the Bureau of Prisons lists the following (for federal prisons, obviously):

White - 109,502 inmates (58.6%)
Black - 70,584 inmates (37.8%)
Native American - 4,057 inmates (2.2%)
Asian - 2,766 inmates (1.5%)

That's a majority for whites, but not a vast one. And when you compare it to the racial spread of the country, it looks a bit different:

White alone, percent, July 1, 2016, (V2016)(a) 76.9%
Black or African American alone, percent, July 1, 2016, (V2016)(a) 13.3%
Asian alone, percent, July 1, 2016, (V2016)(a) 5.7%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone, percent, July 1, 2016, (V2016)(a) 1.3%

The percent of white inmates in the prisons is noticeably lower than the percentage of whites in the country. By comparison, the percentage of black inmates is almost three times as high as would be expected with an even representation. Native Americans are also incarcerated at a rate beyond their share of the population, while Asians are disproportionately unlikely to be incarcerated.

So there's at least a few actual facts that don't seem to support your argument.


These numbers cannot be right. Where are the Hispanics? The above percentages add up to 97.2% and the Hispanic population exceeds the black.


You can argue all you want but there are tons of statistics on the matter and it is not even disputed by the American government that black people are disproportionately more likely to be incarcerated than other ethnicities in the USA.

Not only that, but black people are also more likely to get a longer sentence than a white person for the same crime.

The gap has been closing slowly in the past few years, after awareness of the disparity reached the public domain and I suppose institutions reacted, but it is still a huge gap that will take many decades to close at the current rate.

If we decide to go racing only at countries with a acceptable human rights record AND we don't apply any western bias to our decisions, we might be left with very few races.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 12:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 2:03 pm
Posts: 1229
Herb Tarlik wrote:
Exediron wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
If that's indeed the case, I suspect you've fallen prey to total and utter BS that many people fall for hook, line and sinker. The factual reality is that the vast majority of prison inmates in the U.S. are indeed Anglo Saxon and they too have approximately the same percentage of people incarcerated for petty crimes.

This is not true according to our own data, published by the government - the Bureau of Prisons lists the following (for federal prisons, obviously):

White - 109,502 inmates (58.6%)
Black - 70,584 inmates (37.8%)
Native American - 4,057 inmates (2.2%)
Asian - 2,766 inmates (1.5%)

That's a majority for whites, but not a vast one. And when you compare it to the racial spread of the country, it looks a bit different:

White alone, percent, July 1, 2016, (V2016)(a) 76.9%
Black or African American alone, percent, July 1, 2016, (V2016)(a) 13.3%
Asian alone, percent, July 1, 2016, (V2016)(a) 5.7%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone, percent, July 1, 2016, (V2016)(a) 1.3%

The percent of white inmates in the prisons is noticeably lower than the percentage of whites in the country. By comparison, the percentage of black inmates is almost three times as high as would be expected with an even representation. Native Americans are also incarcerated at a rate beyond their share of the population, while Asians are disproportionately unlikely to be incarcerated.

So there's at least a few actual facts that don't seem to support your argument.


These numbers cannot be right. Where are the Hispanics? The above percentages add up to 97.2% and the Hispanic population exceeds the black.

Bureau of Prisons has a separate page just for Hispanic and Non-Hispanic under "Inmate Ethnicity": https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/st ... nicity.jsp
Hispanic 62,254 33.3%
Non-Hispanic 124,655 66.7%
Quick glance at the population data puts the general population at 17.8% Hispanic.

_________________
===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶===


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 1:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12274
Herb Tarlik wrote:
Exediron wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
If that's indeed the case, I suspect you've fallen prey to total and utter BS that many people fall for hook, line and sinker. The factual reality is that the vast majority of prison inmates in the U.S. are indeed Anglo Saxon and they too have approximately the same percentage of people incarcerated for petty crimes.

This is not true according to our own data, published by the government - the Bureau of Prisons lists the following (for federal prisons, obviously):

White - 109,502 inmates (58.6%)
Black - 70,584 inmates (37.8%)
Native American - 4,057 inmates (2.2%)
Asian - 2,766 inmates (1.5%)

That's a majority for whites, but not a vast one. And when you compare it to the racial spread of the country, it looks a bit different:

White alone, percent, July 1, 2016, (V2016)(a) 76.9%
Black or African American alone, percent, July 1, 2016, (V2016)(a) 13.3%
Asian alone, percent, July 1, 2016, (V2016)(a) 5.7%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone, percent, July 1, 2016, (V2016)(a) 1.3%

The percent of white inmates in the prisons is noticeably lower than the percentage of whites in the country. By comparison, the percentage of black inmates is almost three times as high as would be expected with an even representation. Native Americans are also incarcerated at a rate beyond their share of the population, while Asians are disproportionately unlikely to be incarcerated.

So there's at least a few actual facts that don't seem to support your argument.


These numbers cannot be right. Where are the Hispanics? The above percentages add up to 97.2% and the Hispanic population exceeds the black.


Wouldn't the hispanic's be in accounted for in the "white" stats?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 1:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 4265
mikeyg123 wrote:
Herb Tarlik wrote:
Exediron wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
If that's indeed the case, I suspect you've fallen prey to total and utter BS that many people fall for hook, line and sinker. The factual reality is that the vast majority of prison inmates in the U.S. are indeed Anglo Saxon and they too have approximately the same percentage of people incarcerated for petty crimes.

This is not true according to our own data, published by the government - the Bureau of Prisons lists the following (for federal prisons, obviously):

White - 109,502 inmates (58.6%)
Black - 70,584 inmates (37.8%)
Native American - 4,057 inmates (2.2%)
Asian - 2,766 inmates (1.5%)

That's a majority for whites, but not a vast one. And when you compare it to the racial spread of the country, it looks a bit different:

White alone, percent, July 1, 2016, (V2016)(a) 76.9%
Black or African American alone, percent, July 1, 2016, (V2016)(a) 13.3%
Asian alone, percent, July 1, 2016, (V2016)(a) 5.7%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone, percent, July 1, 2016, (V2016)(a) 1.3%

The percent of white inmates in the prisons is noticeably lower than the percentage of whites in the country. By comparison, the percentage of black inmates is almost three times as high as would be expected with an even representation. Native Americans are also incarcerated at a rate beyond their share of the population, while Asians are disproportionately unlikely to be incarcerated.

So there's at least a few actual facts that don't seem to support your argument.


These numbers cannot be right. Where are the Hispanics? The above percentages add up to 97.2% and the Hispanic population exceeds the black.


Wouldn't the hispanic's be in accounted for in the "white" stats?

No they wouldn't. The main thing people don't realize is that the system generates these stats as much as the population does. In the US, how much money you have is the single most important factor with regards to your outcomes in the criminal justice system. This is a very large topic to discuss so maybe it's best not to get into it but there is a pay wall at every level of the "justice" process. Unfortunately when people see something converted to a statistical abstraction, they often assume that it becomes totally objective and devoid of any biases or agendas...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 3:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1568
Alex53 wrote:

If we decide to go racing only at countries with a acceptable human rights record AND we don't apply any western bias to our decisions, we might be left with very few races.


Is being against gassing thousands of people at a time part of a "western bias"?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 6:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 2:03 pm
Posts: 1229
mikeyg123 wrote:
Herb Tarlik wrote:
Exediron wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
If that's indeed the case, I suspect you've fallen prey to total and utter BS that many people fall for hook, line and sinker. The factual reality is that the vast majority of prison inmates in the U.S. are indeed Anglo Saxon and they too have approximately the same percentage of people incarcerated for petty crimes.

This is not true according to our own data, published by the government - the Bureau of Prisons lists the following (for federal prisons, obviously):

White - 109,502 inmates (58.6%)
Black - 70,584 inmates (37.8%)
Native American - 4,057 inmates (2.2%)
Asian - 2,766 inmates (1.5%)

That's a majority for whites, but not a vast one. And when you compare it to the racial spread of the country, it looks a bit different:

White alone, percent, July 1, 2016, (V2016)(a) 76.9%
Black or African American alone, percent, July 1, 2016, (V2016)(a) 13.3%
Asian alone, percent, July 1, 2016, (V2016)(a) 5.7%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone, percent, July 1, 2016, (V2016)(a) 1.3%

The percent of white inmates in the prisons is noticeably lower than the percentage of whites in the country. By comparison, the percentage of black inmates is almost three times as high as would be expected with an even representation. Native Americans are also incarcerated at a rate beyond their share of the population, while Asians are disproportionately unlikely to be incarcerated.

So there's at least a few actual facts that don't seem to support your argument.


These numbers cannot be right. Where are the Hispanics? The above percentages add up to 97.2% and the Hispanic population exceeds the black.


Wouldn't the hispanic's be in accounted for in the "white" stats?

It's not totally clear, but I think that is logically the case with the Bureau of Prisons data.

If that is the case incorporating the "Inmate Ethnicity" that would mean the "White" prison population of 109,502 (58.6%) breaks down to:

"Hispanic" 62,254 (33.3%)
"Non-Hispanic" 47,248 (25.3%).

--------------------------------------------------

Regarding ethics and such, a while ago just out of interest I created a spreadsheet that compared how the Democracy Indexes of the countries the F1 circus visits has changed over the last two decades. Not exactly scientific or statistically rigorous, but one of the few clear metrics I could find. In short:

Average Democracy index (2006 data / 2016 data):

1997 Season - 8.16 / 8.06
2006 Season - 7.37 / 7.24
2017 Season - 6.64 / 6.45

_________________
===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶===


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 11:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 4393
Location: Michigan, USA
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
It never ceases to amaze me how quickly people run to google stuff just to make themselves look superiorly informed via posting whatever the first thing they find in their search results. Did you even think to question your findings thoroughly before running to post that??!??

Simple math would tell you that info is more than questionable.

So looking at data from two USA federal government sources is 'running to Google' now? Did you even bother to look at my sources before crying 'Google!"?

I certainly did look at the findings before posting them, and they broadly fit with what I believe and have read from numerous sources. What's the supposedly simple math that would debunk the published reports of the actual government?

What never ceases to amaze me is how certain people willfully ignore any facts that don't fit with their opinion.

mikeyg123 wrote:
Herb Tarlik wrote:
These numbers cannot be right. Where are the Hispanics? The above percentages add up to 97.2% and the Hispanic population exceeds the black.

Wouldn't the hispanic's be in accounted for in the "white" stats?

Yes, Hispanics are considered to be white in that data set, I believe. They certainly are under the census data.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2017: Don't Ask| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
Wins: 3 | Podiums: 11

PF1 Top Three Constructor's Championship
2015 (No Limit Excedrin Racing): CHAMPIONS


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1568
Exediron wrote:

Yes, Hispanics are considered to be white in that data set, I believe. They certainly are under the census data.


Impossible. How could the government have any idea about Hispanic demographics if they were lumped into the white population? I have never, EVER seen any racial survey that did not have a specific entry for Hispanics.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 11:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 2:23 pm
Posts: 313
Herb Tarlik wrote:
Exediron wrote:

Yes, Hispanics are considered to be white in that data set, I believe. They certainly are under the census data.


Impossible. How could the government have any idea about Hispanic demographics if they were lumped into the white population? I have never, EVER seen any racial survey that did not have a specific entry for Hispanics.

Look at the data, the links are right there and it is pretty clear in both data sets. Both are government figures and while both do have separate data for white-Hispanic vs white-non Hispanic they both include both groups in the white group in the figures in the post.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2017 12:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 4:42 pm
Posts: 1812
Herb Tarlik wrote:
Exediron wrote:

Yes, Hispanics are considered to be white in that data set, I believe. They certainly are under the census data.


Impossible. How could the government have any idea about Hispanic demographics if they were lumped into the white population? I have never, EVER seen any racial survey that did not have a specific entry for Hispanics.


Don't say impossible when you have zero idea on the subject. I've worked in these kind of stats for years. It depends on the level they are reporting it.

At a high level, there is not always (or even usually) an Hispanic ethnicity. They will be included in the other categories.

On a more detailed level, then they may be included as Hispanic White, Hispanic Black etc.

_________________
Group Pick 'Em 2016 Champion


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ennis, mac_d, P-F1 Mod and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group