Dude I was giving an example. If a Black man had shot ANY other race he would have been put in jail immediately. Better? Cuz it’s true.
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
Absolutely!!! If this was reveresed, a black man shooting a white kid, the black man would have already been in a jail cell. 100%.[/quote]
Not that it matters, but the shooter is Hispanic, not “white” as in “anglo.”[/quote]
Hispanic, Asian, Martian… who cares. Zimmerman racially profiled the kid. [/quote]
I don’t disagree with you. Just correcting the “reversed” statement.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
Once again, these aren’t conclusions I’ve come to lightly. You aren’t going to come up with a possible “out” that I haven’t already considered and looked into myself. If you can, fantastic, but don’t hold your breath. [/quote]
You didn’t come to a real conclusion at all. Reaching a conclusion implies that you actually understand how the information that you used to come to a conclusion was obtained, and you clearly have very little understanding of statistics. Definitely not enough to understand when a statistical analysis is useful and when it is not. You just looked at some numbers posted on a website or in a journal/magazine and assumed they were accurate and valid to the “conclusion” you came to.
Again, your “conclusion” was something along the lines of “This statistic says that 52% of convicted murderers are black, therefore 52% of all murders are committed by black people.” If any of my students, even freshman, came to a similar conclusion in any of my classes, they would fail. One of the first things taught in any intro to statistics class is that a statistical analysis is only useful if the parameters are met. This statistical analysis was conducted under the restraint that it was only conducted on convicted murderers. That means that it is only applicable for convicted murderers. It has ZERO applicability outside of that constraint due to the unknowns.[/quote]
I had a good chuckle at this after posting my last response to you. [/quote]
That’s good because there are likely a lot of people laughing at you right now for not understanding what has been explained to you about 10 times in this thread.
Just a heads up…the way you think you are coming across right now is all in your head alone.[/quote]
Responding to my counter arguments with same arguments I’m countering =/= a valid counter argument. Do you also laugh at your own jokes?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
Absolutely!!! If this was reveresed, a black man shooting a white kid, the black man would have already been in a jail cell. 100%.[/quote]
Not that it matters, but the shooter is Hispanic, not “white” as in “anglo.”[/quote]
LOL at the defense mechanism.
There are people in this thread more worried about whether he is white than why the black kid is dead.
[/quote]
I’m Mescalero Apache, born and raised on the reservation, dumbass.
Closer to Hispanic than white. Certainly brown-skinned.[/quote]
I’m 4/1876ths Apache also.
We have covered his race about 500 times in this thread.[/quote]
Ooh! Can I get in on this?
I’m 1/8 Crowe!
[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
Absolutely!!! If this was reveresed, a black man shooting a white kid, the black man would have already been in a jail cell. 100%.[/quote]
Not that it matters, but the shooter is Hispanic, not “white” as in “anglo.”[/quote]
Hispanic, Asian, Martian… who cares. Zimmerman racially profiled the kid. [/quote]
I don’t disagree with you. Just correcting the “reversed” statement.[/quote]
We thank you for the correction…because it has been at least a whole page since it had been mentioned.
Dude I was giving an example. If a Black man had shot ANY other race he would have been put in jail immediately. Better? Cuz it’s true.
[quote]DarkNinjaa wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
Once again, these aren’t conclusions I’ve come to lightly. You aren’t going to come up with a possible “out” that I haven’t already considered and looked into myself. If you can, fantastic, but don’t hold your breath. [/quote]
You didn’t come to a real conclusion at all. Reaching a conclusion implies that you actually understand how the information that you used to come to a conclusion was obtained, and you clearly have very little understanding of statistics. Definitely not enough to understand when a statistical analysis is useful and when it is not. You just looked at some numbers posted on a website or in a journal/magazine and assumed they were accurate and valid to the “conclusion” you came to.
Again, your “conclusion” was something along the lines of “This statistic says that 52% of convicted murderers are black, therefore 52% of all murders are committed by black people.” If any of my students, even freshman, came to a similar conclusion in any of my classes, they would fail. One of the first things taught in any intro to statistics class is that a statistical analysis is only useful if the parameters are met. This statistical analysis was conducted under the restraint that it was only conducted on convicted murderers. That means that it is only applicable for convicted murderers. It has ZERO applicability outside of that constraint due to the unknowns.[/quote]
I had a good chuckle at this after posting my last response to you. [/quote]
That’s good because there are likely a lot of people laughing at you right now for not understanding what has been explained to you about 10 times in this thread.
Just a heads up…the way you think you are coming across right now is all in your head alone.[/quote]
You know what? I showed his posts to a few friends, all from different background and races, and I can’t describe the level of hilarity that ensued. A couple of them shook their head in sadness though. ‘‘People still think like this?’’ was mainly the question. [/quote]
Well, my positions are against the status quo. Personally, the fact that most people are tumultously against me is evidence that I am correct as far as I’m concerned.
Zimmershit’s race is not important at this point. He was a person who used racial profiling/sterotypes to Dirty harry a lil kid. Plain and simple.
2:21-2:23 you can hear him say “Fucken Coons”.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I’m 4/1876ths Apache also.
[/quote]
Funny, you look Irish.
TigerTime you said you are not a bigot. So what would you classify yourself as? Your views are teetering on bigotry…IMO. Are you trying to tell me that all of these “Facts” you got going on doesn’t color your view of minorites as a whole and how you would treat them? Especially Blacks?
[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
TigerTime you said you are not a bigot. So what would you classify yourself as? Your views are teetering on bigotry…IMO. Are you trying to tell me that all of these “Facts” you got going on doesn’t color your view of minorites as a whole and how you would treat them? Especially Blacks?[/quote]
Wrong question…WHY would someone who is not a racist spend this much time finding stats to support his view…despite several people with fields in genetics and biology telling him his data is off?
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]four60 wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I’m very skeptical of the idea that blacks are genetically predisposed to commit more crimes than other races. I would like to look at how the data was collected. At the same time it would be wrong to rule out a possibility because it makes us feel uncomfortable. We want the RIGHT answer, not the one that makes us feel the most comfortable.
One thing I have noticed though is that there are a lot of parallels you can draw between the Aboriginal community of Canada and the black community in the US. They both are more likely to commit violent crimes disproportionate to their representation in the population, both more likely to be imprisoned and both more likely to be raised in single parent households. A long list of other stuff, but you guys get the idea.
The reason I have connected them is that they both have a long history of mistreatment in society by the social majority. Would it be possible that this mistreatment has effected their culture and values that still play a role today?
Not claiming to be an expert on this topic, just a thought.
[/quote]
What aboriginal tribes recently discovered and still living in the stone age?
I do find it interesting that through out history, certain regions grew, prospered, developed technology and then of course dominated regions still throwing stones and using sticks for self defense.
Take the middle east for example, obviously a pioneer in science, math, culture et cetera and bordering Asia, Europe and Africa.
Look at the technological advances of European and Asian countries at any point in history compared to Africa.
I realize I’ll probably get crucified for this musing, but it’s interesting when viewed objectively.
Societal support is helpful of course, take a tribesman and throw him in modern society and he will adapt to the best of his abilities but, as a whole, why did one region lag so far behind?[/quote]
The most common theory is that moving out of Africa meant food would be harder to find and it would take more intelligence in order to cultivate a sustainable tribe. As it happens, the gap necessary to survive in the frigid climate of ancient Europe also gave rise to the intelligence levels necessary to build western civilization to what it is today.
Something along those lines. [/quote]
???Unless you are talking about the Middle East I’m not sure what part of Ancient Western Europe was any more advanced than any place else.
Wow.
Ok on this note I am out. hahahaha wow.[/quote]
? I’m talking about why all non-African societies continued advancing while Africa stayed relatively stagnant. In the case of Europe, this is why. [/quote]
In the case of Europe you had a culture that viewed the world in a very unique way, meaning, the world had fixed rules that could be understood by the human mind. The belief in the power of reason, that is neither intuitively true nor the norm (well, now it is, kind off) was propagated by the Greeks, carried on by the Romans and reinforced by a Judeo Christian tradition that had the idea that the Lord has set up a world of fixed rules from the get go.
Add to that that Europe is relatively small and all the crops and animals that were domesticated in the Middle East could relatively easily adapted to European conditions due to its East West axis and the general shape that forced relentless competition on the European people and you had quite a few advantages that added up.
Now you could propose that longer exposure to culture leads to higher IQs, but that still would not mean that lower IQa necessarily lead to more crime.
[/quote]
This is true, and again, I don’t know what the exact mechanism is that is causing this radical difference in crime rates, but my best guess would be to look at the factors that make blacks distinct from all the other races as the most probable culprit. In this case, the most outstanding features are an incredibly steep IQ gap and significantly higher T levels, both of which have been shown to be accurate predictors of increased criminal behaviour amongst all races.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
This is true, and again, I don’t know what the exact mechanism is that is causing this radical difference in crime rates, but my best guess would be to look at the factors that make blacks distinct from all the other races as the most probable culprit. In this case, the most outstanding features are an incredibly steep IQ gap and significantly higher T levels, both of which have been shown to be accurate predictors of increased criminal behaviour amongst all races. [/quote]
Damn it…I’m late for my Million Man March/Testosterone Test.
Did that News Letter make it to the other few million blacks in the country?
It wasn’t just me, was it?
[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I’m 4/1876ths Apache also.
[/quote]
Funny, you look Irish.[/quote]
Eats like a horse and swears all the time.
Probably Norwegian, the Viking blood will not be denied.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
Well, my positions are against the status quo. Personally, the fact that most people are tumultously against me is evidence that I am correct as far as I’m concerned. [/quote]
You’re a fucking idiot. That’s why everyone is against you. It has nothing to do with the status quo, but you keep on using it to justify your idiocy.
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
Can I get in on this?
I’m 1/8 Crowe!
[/quote]
Note that my race was injected by the bigoted Professor X, who (wrongly) assumed I am white and thus “defensive” of white people.
[quote]
Or, are you contending that nearly all of the unsolved murders are made by whites? Again, victimization studies and police reports match up. For you to be right, it would take both an absolute critical failure of the U.S. police force and an absolute critical failure of the American people’s ability to determine race to the exact same degree for one race to be mistakenly made out to be responsible for 37 times the amount of murders as whites.
Bu [/quote]
So, what are you saying? That in certain areas construed statistically by a few small governing research institutions, certain individuals may have racist tendencies? That the U.S. police force and the average American citizen (For argument’s sake let’s say it’s you) can fuck interpretations of things up? Great fucking observation.
Also, “victimization studies and police reports match up”. To what data do those conducting victimization studies have access to? Statistics are generally ineffective ways of reaching conclusions about any topic, generally…
It’s kind of disturbing, and very sad in a way that this discussion is occurring. I mean, the kid got shot for buying skittles and an iced tea. People argue in defense of the shooters’ actions? Fuck them. Why give people with hateful tendencies practice?
[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
Can I get in on this?
I’m 1/8 Crowe!
[/quote]
Note that my race was injected by the bigoted Professor X, who (wrongly) assumed I am white and thus “defensive” of white people.[/quote]
I honestly don’t care what you are. I think we have covered the fact that this man’s race is not important about a few hundred times in this thread before your post.
You came in late and thought you were giving us fresh data.
It wasn’t fresh.
Expiration Date: 3/1986
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]four60 wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I’m very skeptical of the idea that blacks are genetically predisposed to commit more crimes than other races. I would like to look at how the data was collected. At the same time it would be wrong to rule out a possibility because it makes us feel uncomfortable. We want the RIGHT answer, not the one that makes us feel the most comfortable.
One thing I have noticed though is that there are a lot of parallels you can draw between the Aboriginal community of Canada and the black community in the US. They both are more likely to commit violent crimes disproportionate to their representation in the population, both more likely to be imprisoned and both more likely to be raised in single parent households. A long list of other stuff, but you guys get the idea.
The reason I have connected them is that they both have a long history of mistreatment in society by the social majority. Would it be possible that this mistreatment has effected their culture and values that still play a role today?
Not claiming to be an expert on this topic, just a thought.
[/quote]
What aboriginal tribes recently discovered and still living in the stone age?
I do find it interesting that through out history, certain regions grew, prospered, developed technology and then of course dominated regions still throwing stones and using sticks for self defense.
Take the middle east for example, obviously a pioneer in science, math, culture et cetera and bordering Asia, Europe and Africa.
Look at the technological advances of European and Asian countries at any point in history compared to Africa.
I realize I’ll probably get crucified for this musing, but it’s interesting when viewed objectively.
Societal support is helpful of course, take a tribesman and throw him in modern society and he will adapt to the best of his abilities but, as a whole, why did one region lag so far behind?[/quote]
The most common theory is that moving out of Africa meant food would be harder to find and it would take more intelligence in order to cultivate a sustainable tribe. As it happens, the gap necessary to survive in the frigid climate of ancient Europe also gave rise to the intelligence levels necessary to build western civilization to what it is today.
Something along those lines. [/quote]
???Unless you are talking about the Middle East I’m not sure what part of Ancient Western Europe was any more advanced than any place else.
Wow.
Ok on this note I am out. hahahaha wow.[/quote]
? I’m talking about why all non-African societies continued advancing while Africa stayed relatively stagnant. In the case of Europe, this is why. [/quote]
In the case of Europe you had a culture that viewed the world in a very unique way, meaning, the world had fixed rules that could be understood by the human mind. The belief in the power of reason, that is neither intuitively true nor the norm (well, now it is, kind off) was propagated by the Greeks, carried on by the Romans and reinforced by a Judeo Christian tradition that had the idea that the Lord has set up a world of fixed rules from the get go.
Add to that that Europe is relatively small and all the crops and animals that were domesticated in the Middle East could relatively easily adapted to European conditions due to its East West axis and the general shape that forced relentless competition on the European people and you had quite a few advantages that added up.
Now you could propose that longer exposure to culture leads to higher IQs, but that still would not mean that lower IQa necessarily lead to more crime.
[/quote]
This is true, and again, I don’t know what the exact mechanism is that is causing this radical difference in crime rates, but my best guess would be to look at the factors that make blacks distinct from all the other races as the most probable culprit. In this case, the most outstanding features are an incredibly steep IQ gap and significantly higher T levels, both of which have been shown to be accurate predictors of increased criminal behaviour amongst all races. [/quote]
Or that they are shit poor, drug dealing seems like a good career choice which comes with a certain innate chance of a rather sudden and violent death.
Becaaaaauuuuusssse, most of that crime is black on black crime.