Fixing The Race Thing

[quote]ChrisPowers wrote:
To be honest, I didn’t even think it was disputed that blacks commit the majority of violent crimes in the U.S. Is it?[/quote]
I will.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/web/offreported/02-nviolent02.html

From the report:
“A review of arrest data by race showed that whites made up 59.7 percent of all violent crime arrestees, with blacks comprising 38.0 percent, and other races, 2.3 percent.”

And this is in the context of violent crime, about two-thirds of the way down the page I linked above.

This is once again the basic problem here. You have no idea what racism is. What you did was take a stereotype and apply it. Why in the world would you say something like “most violent crime is committed by blacks” without ever doing just a tiny bit of fact-checking? You ASSUMED that the stereotype was right, didn’t you? This is not political correctness, this is the damn truth.

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:

This is once again the basic problem here. You have no idea what racism is. [/quote]

Judging by many of the responses in this thread and others over the last few days, I am guessing that is the case with many people. In just the last 3 days, even the names that are largely used by blacks have been made fun of and it doesn’t appear that many think any of that is racism. The guy who started this thread is an obvious racist but you still have people actually trying to defend him as if he isn’t. We saw two photos, one of a little white kid walking out of a store with food in his hands and no mention of “looting” as the caption. A group of blacks are in a following photo with food in their hands and they are named as “looters”. You had people trying to justify that one as well. I mean, look how cute the little white kid is…of course he isn’t stealing. Mind you, what do people get riled about? Kanye West saying, “Bush doesn’t care about black people.” That statement received pages worth of responses but very few have decided the same attention is needed by some guy running around ignoring socio-economic status and blaming crime on race. If it isn’t clear by now, then they will forever be in the dark.

New Orleans just got wiped off of the map and the first thing some people turn to is even more negativity. In the midst of the many that need help, skin color is what many focus in on? If you turn on the news and see the images of these people who have no place to live anymore and the first thing that pops into your head is what race they are, you have problems.

[quote]JJJJ wrote:
MISERERE . . . not an expert on IQ but I’ll share some thoughts.

First . . . IQ tests are not bullshit . . . they are legitimate tools and “properly administered IQ tests are not demonstrably biased against social, economic, ethnic, or racial groups.” (Herrnstein and Murray)

Second, as has been often said, IQ doesn’t measure intelligence the way a ruler measures distance. No test can. But IQ does measure intelligence the way a race measures speed. So it can be very useful in comparing large sample groups.[/quote]

i have a very, very high IQ, and I’m going to have to say that IQ tests are simply bullshit.

IQ tests, like all tests, only reveal how well someone TESTS…

but TESTS are NEVER real life.

and tests do not reveal how well someone can apply himself in real life.

Racist thinking is illogical and involves viewing situations with a slant instead of objectively. i.e.- when the staement is made that blacks are more violent, one has to ask what blacks were used to come up with this statistic? obviously it is black criminals.

So a racist thinks the behavior of black criminals has something to do with the behavior of blacks that are not criminals. This is absurd.

Prison is often used as an argument that blacks are mostly criminals because they tend to have a high percentage of black inmates, but it isn’t logical to use a place that is all criminals as a sampling of the black population. The average black person isn’t a criminal.For some reason though, blacks whether they are criminals or not are all lumped in the same category.

The ability to judge an individual on their own behavior and not lump everyone into a group is a sign of critical thinking, objectivity and maturity, in other words being a grownup.

Suppose for a minute that blacks were indeed more violent than whites.

What would we do about it?

Lock people up before they commit violence? Keep people medicated to suppress violent urges?

Any possible solution is worse than the alleged problem.

This is all a load of bullshit.

“I hate to admit it, but I have reached a stage in my life that if I am walking down a dark street late at night and I see that the person behind me is white, I subconsciously feel relieved.”

Jesse Jackson

[quote]ScienceGuy wrote:
“I hate to admit it, but I have reached a stage in my life that if I am walking down a dark street late at night and I see that the person behind me is white, I subconsciously feel relieved.”

Jesse Jackson[/quote]

I don’t. If I see anyone behind me late at night I am on guard. Thanks for the quote though. I suppose this means…that Jesse Jackson said this once…which means…?

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
I will.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/web/offreported/02-nviolent02.html

From the report:
"A review of arrest data by race showed that whites made up 59.7 percent of all violent crime arrestees, with blacks comprising 38.0 percent[/quote]

LOTHARIO . . . I will respond fully to both of your posts but I’ll start with this one first.

Let’s take a look at the COMPLETE paragraph you cited (not just the one sentence above) and let’s put it “in context” as you suggest.

THE PARAGRAPH READS: “A review of arrest data by race showed that whites made up 59.7 percent of all violent crime arrestees, with blacks comprising 38.0 percent . . . Fifty percent of the murder arrestees during 2002 were black, and 47.7 percent of arrestees were white.”

Now, to you, the fact that 59.7% of arrestees are white proves that whites are much more violent, right?

OK . . . well, let’s put it “in context” . . . let’s take a look at 2000 US Census data :

75% of pop = white
12.3% of pop = black

So . . . 75% of the population accounted for 59.7% of arrests . . . while the 12.7% of the population accounted for 38% of arrests.

Therefore, YOUR OWN DATA shows that whites weren’t even arrested at the expected rate . . . while blacks were arrested at over 300% of their expected rate.

So your point is what exactly?

The comparison is even worse if you consider murder . . . the 75% white population accounted for 47% of murders . . . while the 12.7% black population accounted for 50% of murders.

Again, whites don’t even reach their expected rates WHILE BLACKS ARE AT 400% OF THEIR EXPECTED RATE.

So your point is what exactly?

Finally, you love tossing the term “racist” around. A racist is one who believes in the superiority of his race . . . which you assume, in my case is white.

Not only do I not believe that “whites are superior” . . . I’m not even “white.”

I think that you, like others on this thread, are fighting for a certain principle and I respect that. But you need to be very careful not to let your zeal overwhelm your common sense. You need to open your mind to what’s really going on in this country if you ever hope to have a positive effect on it.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Suppose for a minute that blacks were indeed more violent than whites.

What would we do about it?
[/quote]

ZAP . . . great question!

What we do is zero in on the causes, which I listed in my opening post. Please go back and read the list. You change them with education and common sense programs . . . not the drivel that white liberals have tried for years.

Ultimately, I think “capitalism” is the best remedy. Money has to flow into the black neighborhoods to encourage more people to become entrepreneurs.

During the “tech bubble” for example, money flowed into every crazy idea that came along. Every asshole with a gimmick got funding and started a dot-com company.

The same model can be applied to black neighborhoods . . . except instead of dot-coms, we create black-owned supermarkets, barbershops, car dealerships, laundries, construction companies, private schools, body shops, stereo stores, fast-food joints, day-care centers, etc, etc.

The right infusion of money can change the problem. And that’s just one example.

The problem is, that there’s no political will to do that because liberals hide the problem in the black community with their “we are all the same” bullshit.

We’re not all the same. The stats show that the black community is in serious trouble.

I’m a little confused here. Are you claiming that blacks are more violent or that they are convicted of more crimes. 'Cause baby, there is a big difference between the two. Just like the poor who did not have the resources to escape hurricane Katrina, many blacks do not have the resources to hire good attornies to represent them in court. They must rely on court appointed counsel which are overworked and cannot put the same amount of time and effort into each case that a highly paid attorney can. And that is just one of the problems with our justice system when it comes to race. So what are you basing your statistics on?

Now if you want to talk about violence, I’ll just finish by pointing out that the FBI profile for a serial killer is a white male in their twenties or thirties.
This is starting to sound like the XYY theory.

I apologize if anyone already posted this material, but I couldn’t keep reading some of these posts. Thanks jjjj for attempting to educate people, but please remember when you argue with a Californian, that they just reelected Barby Boxer, so facts and common sense are out the window.

An Unnatural Disaster: A Hurricane Exposes the Man-Made Disaster of the Welfare State

by Robert Tracinski Sep 02, 2005 by Robert Tracinski

It took four long days for state and federal officials to figure out how to deal with the disaster in New Orleans. I can’t blame them, because it also took me four long days to figure out what was going on there. The reason is that the events there make no sense if you think that we are confronting a natural disaster.

If this is just a natural disaster, the response for public officials is obvious: you bring in food, water, and doctors; you send transportation to evacuate refugees to temporary shelters; you send engineers to stop the flooding and rebuild the city’s infrastructure. For journalists, natural disasters also have a familiar pattern: the heroism of ordinary people pulling together to survive; the hard work and dedication of doctors, nurses, and rescue workers; the steps being taken to clean up and rebuild.

Public officials did not expect that the first thing they would have to do is to send thousands of armed troops in armored vehicle, as if they are suppressing an enemy insurgency. And journalists?myself included?did not expect that the story would not be about rain, wind, and flooding, but about rape, murder, and looting.

But this is not a natural disaster. It is a man-made disaster.

The man-made disaster is not an inadequate or incompetent response by federal relief agencies, and it was not directly caused by Hurricane Katrina. This is where just about every newspaper and television channel has gotten the story wrong.

The man-made disaster we are now witnessing in New Orleans did not happen over four days last week. It happened over the past four decades. Hurricane Katrina merely exposed it to public view.

The man-made disaster is the welfare state.

For the past few days, I have found the news from New Orleans to be confusing. People were not behaving as you would expect them to behave in an emergency?indeed, they were not behaving as they have behaved in other emergencies. That is what has shocked so many people: they have been saying that this is not what we expect from America. In fact, it is not even what we expect from a Third World country.

When confronted with a disaster, people usually rise to the occasion. They work together to rescue people in danger, and they spontaneously organize to keep order and solve problems. This is especially true in America. We are an enterprising people, used to relying on our own initiative rather than waiting around for the government to take care of us. I have seen this a hundred times, in small examples (a small town whose main traffic light had gone out, causing ordinary citizens to get out of their cars and serve as impromptu traffic cops, directing cars through the intersection) and large ones (the spontaneous response of New Yorkers to September 11).

So what explains the chaos in New Orleans?

To give you an idea of the magnitude of what is going on, here is a description from a Washington Times story:

"Storm victims are raped and beaten; fights erupt with flying fists, knives and guns; fires are breaking out; corpses litter the streets; and police and rescue helicopters are repeatedly fired on.

"The plea from Mayor C. Ray Nagin came even as National Guardsmen poured in to restore order and stop the looting, carjackings and gunfire…

"Last night, Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco said 300 Iraq-hardened Arkansas National Guard members were inside New Orleans with shoot-to-kill orders.

" ‘These troops are…under my orders to restore order in the streets,’ she said. ‘They have M-16s, and they are locked and loaded. These troops know how to shoot and kill and they are more than willing to do so if necessary and I expect they will.’ "

The reference to Iraq is eerie. The photo that accompanies this article shows a SWAT team with rifles and armored vests riding on an armored vehicle through trash-strewn streets lined by a rabble of squalid, listless people, one of whom appears to be yelling at them. It looks exactly like a scene from Sadr City in Baghdad.

What explains bands of thugs using a natural disaster as an excuse for an orgy of looting, armed robbery, and rape? What causes unruly mobs to storm the very buses that have arrived to evacuate them, causing the drivers to speed away, frightened for their lives? What causes people to attack the doctors trying to treat patients at the Superdome?

Why are people responding to natural destruction by causing further destruction? Why are they attacking the people who are trying to help them? My wife, Sherri, figured it out first, and she figured it out on a sense-of-life level. While watching the coverage one night on Fox News Channel, she told me that she was getting a familiar feeling. She studied architecture at the Illinois Institute of Chicago, which is located in the South Side of Chicago just blocks away from the Robert Taylor Homes, one of the largest high-rise public housing projects in America. “The projects,” as they were known, were infamous for uncontrollable crime and irremediable squalor. (They have since, mercifully, been demolished.)

What Sherri was getting from last night’s television coverage was a whiff of the sense of life of “the projects.” Then the “crawl”?the informational phrases flashed at the bottom of the screen on most news channels?gave some vital statistics to confirm this sense: 75% of the residents of New Orleans had already evacuated before the hurricane, and of those who remained, a large number were from the city’s public housing projects. Jack Wakeland then told me that early reports from CNN and Fox indicated that the city had no plan for evacuating all of the prisoners in the city’s jails?so they just let many of them loose. [Update: I have been searching for news reports on this last story, but I have not been able to confirm it. Instead, I have found numerous reports about the collapse of the corrupt and incompetent New Orleans Police Department; see here and here.]

There is no doubt a significant overlap between these two populations–that is, a large number of people in the jails used to live in the housing projects, and vice versa.

There were many decent, innocent people trapped in New Orleans when the deluge hit?but they were trapped alongside large numbers of people from two groups: criminals?and wards of the welfare state, people selected, over decades, for their lack of initiative and self-induced helplessness. The welfare wards were a mass of sheep?on whom the incompetent administration of New Orleans unleashed a pack of wolves.

All of this is related, incidentally, to the incompetence of the city government, which failed to plan for a total evacuation of the city, despite the knowledge that this might be necessary. In a city corrupted by the welfare state, the job of city officials is to ensure the flow of handouts to welfare recipients and patronage to political supporters?not to ensure a lawful, orderly evacuation in case of emergency.

No one has really reported this story, as far as I can tell. In fact, some are already actively distorting it, blaming President Bush, for example, for failing to personally ensure that the Mayor of New Orleans had drafted an adequate evacuation plan. The worst example is an execrable piece from the Toronto Globe and Mail, by a supercilious Canadian who blames the chaos on American “individualism.” But the truth is precisely the opposite: the chaos was caused by a system that was the exact opposite of individualism.

What Hurricane Katrina exposed was the psychological consequences of the welfare state. What we consider “normal” behavior in an emergency is behavior that is normal for people who have values and take the responsibility to pursue and protect them. People with values respond to a disaster by fighting against it and doing whatever it takes to overcome the difficulties they face. They don’t sit around and complain that the government hasn’t taken care of them. And they don’t use the chaos of a disaster as an opportunity to prey on their fellow men.

But what about criminals and welfare parasites? Do they worry about saving their houses and property? They don’t, because they don’t own anything. Do they worry about what is going to happen to their businesses or how they are going to make a living? They never worried about those things before. Do they worry about crime and looting? But living off of stolen wealth is a way of life for them.

People living in piles of their own trash, while petulantly complaining that other people aren’t doing enough to take care of them and then shooting at those who come to rescue them?this is not just a description of the chaos at the Superdome. It is a perfect summary of the 40-year history of the welfare state and its public housing projects.

The welfare state?and the brutish, uncivilized mentality it sustains and encourages?is the man-made disaster that explains the moral ugliness that has swamped New Orleans. And that is the story that no one is reporting.

[quote]JJJJ wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Suppose for a minute that blacks were indeed more violent than whites.

What would we do about it?

ZAP . . . great question!

What we do is zero in on the causes, which I listed in my opening post. Please go back and read the list. You change them with education and common sense programs . . . not the drivel that white liberals have tried for years.

Ultimately, I think “capitalism” is the best remedy. Money has to flow into the black neighborhoods to encourage more people to become entrepreneurs.

During the “tech bubble” for example, money flowed into every crazy idea that came along. Every asshole with a gimmick got funding and started a dot-com company.

The same model can be applied to black neighborhoods . . . except instead of dot-coms, we create black-owned supermarkets, barbershops, car dealerships, laundries, construction companies, private schools, body shops, stereo stores, fast-food joints, day-care centers, etc, etc.

The right infusion of money can change the problem. And that’s just one example.

The problem is, that there’s no political will to do that because liberals hide the problem in the black community with their “we are all the same” bullshit.

We’re not all the same. The stats show that the black community is in serious trouble.
[/quote]

I think you are confusing black and poor people.

Not all black people are poor. Not all poor people are black.

[quote]JJJJ wrote:

OK . . . well, let’s put it “in context” . . . let’s take a look at 2000 US Census data :

75% of pop = white
12.3% of pop = black

So . . . 75% of the population accounted for 59.7% of arrests . . . while the 12.7% of the population accounted for 38% of arrests.

Therefore, YOUR OWN DATA shows that whites weren’t even arrested at the expected rate . . . while blacks were arrested at over 300% of their expected rate.

So your point is what exactly?

[/quote]

Don’t you think that the higher rate of violence among the black population (according to your statistics) is largely due to the fact that an inordinate amount of them are poverty stricken? How many blacks who live in Beverly Hills are committing crimes?

[quote]Professor X wrote:
New Orleans just got wiped off of the map and the first thing some people turn to is even more negativity. In the midst of the many that need help, skin color is what many focus in on? If you turn on the news and see the images of these people who have no place to live anymore and the first thing that pops into your head is what race they are, you have problems.[/quote]

Could not agree more. I just wish we could get off of this topic and… oh I dunno… actually focus on helping all those people in need.

LOTAHRIO . . . many points in your posts but I’ll try to hit all of them.

First of all, get your terms correct. A racist believes in the SUPERIORITY of his group (race, church, nation, whatever). A bigot is INTOLERANT of other races . . . so the white guy who moves when a black guy sits next to him on a bus is a bigot. Saying that Chinese “are better at math” is neither racist or bigoted. It is called STEREOTYPING . . . and it isn’t even that if you believe that the evidence supports your conclusion. Stereotyping is when you have no evidence.

OK . . . now let’s look at your “evidence” which is amazingly weak given the effort you devoted.

LYNCHINGS http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Dec2002/rachleff1202.htm By using “lynchings” to prove that whites are more violent, you are comparing apples to oranges. OK, there were 3500 lynchings . . . all white on black crime. But how much black on white crime was there? How do the two compare?

Look . . . simple example. Cortez and 300 Spaniards destroyed the Aztec empire with it’s 100,000 warriors and enslaved an entire people, right?

Wrong. It was Cortez, his 300 and 50,000 Indian allies who hated the Aztecs. Why? because the Aztecs were a bunch of murdering bastards who took prisoners of war and used them for ritual sacrifice. So depending on how you look at it, the Aztecs were either “victims of white oppression” (the liberal view) or “they got what they deserved” (the opposing view).

Telling me about how thosemean, awful, horrible white people lynched blacks says nothing unless you put that in the context of white AND BLACK criminality.

BLACK CRIME IN THE UK
http://www.carf.demon.co.uk/feat38.html
First of all, an incident of mob violence outrages white liberals and makes guys like Al Sharpton cream in their pants. They love reading this shit because it “proves” how evil whites are towards black . . . and of course that means we need more expensive social programs and “donations.” But again, apples and oranges. What is the rate of black crime to white crime in the UK?

This link reviews crime in the UK: Home - Office for National Statistics The minority population in the UK is only 7% . . . I suspect you’ll find that blacks are more violent there too . . . but I haven’t done the work. I don’t know.

MEDIA
http://www.yale.edu/ypq/articles/oct99/oct99b.html So my beliefs are shaped by the media and I don’t understand “true racism.” OK . . . but I notice that your Yale statistics (while describing the improvements in the black community) failed to explain why they commit half the murders and make up 65% of the prison population.

Here’s a slightly different view of the color of crime.
http://www.amren.com/color.pdf

RELATIONSHIP OF VICTIM

First of all, your quote was incomplete. (Hopefully, not a deliberate omission.) The actual paragraph reads: “For murder victims, 43% were related to or acquainted with their assailants; 14% of victims were murdered by strangers, while 43% of victims had an unknown relationship to their murderer in 2002.”

In other words, 57% of the victims/assailants either don’t know each other or the cops can’t figure out what happened.

But so what? You describe that as a “profile.” It is only one tiny element of a “profile.” A truer profile, I would suggest, is what the US Census Bureau uses . . . they categorize people as black, whites and a bunch of others. That’s how crime stats are organized. And those stats support my conclusion.

LOCATION
I’m not sure what your analysis intends here. You say:

“But if the numbers for violent crime are essentially the same for urban vs. rural residents, then we can’t say that it’s ONLY the black communities because most “black communities” are urban… especially the ones which you are stereotyping.”

Your source says that 90% of crime happens in URBAN and SUBURBAN communties (which is where black people live). They’re not all URBAN as you suggest. Say, is that STEREOTYPING on your part? Racism?

Now, let me address some of your most inflamatory comments. (Guess you ran out of ammo and had to start throwing rocks, huh?)

YOU SAY: “You ARE a racist, and furthermore, you ARE a bigot. Hey, I don’t make the definitions, I just call them as I see them. I don’t see why you are complaining. It’s not like somebody else posted under your username.”

No . . . I’m “complaining” because you obviously don’t understand what a "racist or “bigot” are. You don’t know me or the work I’ve done. You misunderstand my post (deliberately or otherwise) yet don’t bother to ask me questions about it or explain my conclusions. Instead you engage in the lowest form of personal attack possible.

YOU SAY: “Whatever. Of course we are different, a quick look at our skin tones will tell you that. Your problem is that you use the skin color to determine somebody’s heart.”

No . . . I use Federal Crime Statistics . . . THEY use skin color . . . not to look into someone’s “heart” but to look at behavior. I merely draw conclusions on what they report. Which by the way, you haven’t bothered to explain since you’re so busy with your self-righteous poetry.

YOU SAY: “We all want health, prosperity, love… And that is a better determinant for someone’s disposition than a testosterone level or a violent crime statistic.”

Maybe in fucking liberal la-la land, but in the real world where most of us live, FACTS (like crime statistics) matter.

I don’t know if testosterone level (as one example) may make blacks more violent. The problem is . . . neither do you. Yet you’re ready to trash me for even asking the question.

Look Lothario . . . you’re so sure that my interpretation of black crime is wrong? Fine . . . move your family to Harlem or Compton or the South Bronx or some other black ghetto.

Let us know how it goes.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Don’t you think that the higher rate of violence among the black population (according to your statistics) is largely due to the fact that an inordinate amount of them are poverty stricken? How many blacks who live in Beverly Hills are committing crimes?
[/quote]

ZEB . . . I think that’s a great question.

Largely due? I don’t know if anyone can answer that. But black poor areas are MORE VIOLENT than white poor areas.

Take two MSAs (Metropolitan Statistical Areas) of equal size where the median income is about the same but whites are the majority in one and blacks the majority in the other.

Now compare violent and property crime statistics.

It’s a little time concuming but here’s an example . . . two MSAs each with 500,000 people:

JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI
median income $34,000
63 murders
1127 robberies

HARRISBUG, PA
median income $26,000 (LOWER!)
14 murders
117 robberies

One comparison proves nothing. Go do 10 comparisons (or find studies that have . . . if you can find an academic with the balls to publish on racial issues). Draw your own conclusions.

Does poverty influence violence? My answer . . . not as much as liberals want us to believe.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
lothario1132 wrote:

This is once again the basic problem here. You have no idea what racism is.

Judging by many of the responses in this thread and others over the last few days, I am guessing that is the case with many people. In just the last 3 days, even the names that are largely used by blacks have been made fun of and it doesn’t appear that many think any of that is racism. The guy who started this thread is an obvious racist but you still have people actually trying to defend him as if he isn’t. We saw two photos, one of a little white kid walking out of a store with food in his hands and no mention of “looting” as the caption. A group of blacks are in a following photo with food in their hands and they are named as “looters”. You had people trying to justify that one as well. I mean, look how cute the little white kid is…of course he isn’t stealing. Mind you, what do people get riled about? Kanye West saying, “Bush doesn’t care about black people.” That statement received pages worth of responses but very few have decided the same attention is needed by some guy running around ignoring socio-economic status and blaming crime on race. If it isn’t clear by now, then they will forever be in the dark.

New Orleans just got wiped off of the map and the first thing some people turn to is even more negativity. In the midst of the many that need help, skin color is what many focus in on? If you turn on the news and see the images of these people who have no place to live anymore and the first thing that pops into your head is what race they are, you have problems.[/quote]

The reason why most people don’t respond to these threads is because they are so stupid, that just a few people on the forum can speak for the majority.

To be honest the who thing is a disaster! I never understand why reporters are wanting to get to the bottom of things, while politicians are holding “press briefings”. All you hear on the news is talk. Anyone who can get in front of a camera is out there pointing a finger. That is what makes it the worst. Rather than solving the problem everyone is looking for someone to blame. Blame can come later. Solutions need to happen now.

[quote]lincono wrote:

A lot of things he apparently believes in.

   [/quote]

Well than I guess Europe is fucked, because what you call a “welfare system” we call " people living in third world conditions".

Your welfare system consists of enough money not to starve, but not enough money to get out of that trap.

A basic healthcare system and free quality education for everyone levels the playing field and gives people a chance that were born into poverty.

If, as a society, you are not giving them even that small chance they are going to remain poor, or they will make the only career available in their neighborhood, as a criminal.

You might think becoming a career criminal is immoral or evil or whatever, but they probably won?t give a shit.

Why should they, you don?t seem to give a shit about them either.

[quote]horny yoda wrote:
i have a very, very high IQ, and I’m going to have to say that IQ tests are simply bullshit.

IQ tests, like all tests, only reveal how well someone TESTS…
[/quote]

They aren’t bullshit, but they are flawed. We need a way to measure G, and IQ tests are the best thing we’ve come up with thus far. Now, I get into arguments with people all the time about the term “genius,” since I think it properly refers to some generative characteristic (Einstein, Newton, Shakespeare… people who produce paradigm changing works). But that kind of analysis can only be done after the fact; even rapid childhood skill acquisition (ie, child prodigies) is an insufficient indicator of future ability or general intelligence.

So we go with the best thing we have. If you controlled for education, you’d probably find that IQ tests seem to show the intelligence hierarchy in roughly the same way we see it in the world. I don’t have studies in front of me, unfortunately, to back up my claims.

In response to the main point of this thread, I have seen several studies that show that black children raised by white parents score in the same IQ range as their white siblings.

Race and crime.

To only look at those two variables leads to conclusions like: Black people live in Africa. It?s hot in Africa. Therefore black people raise the temperature.

Please notice that it is a lot cooler in Europe, that?s because there are fewer black people here.

In South-Africa it is cooler than in central Africa because of the white settlers.

I?m not entirely sure yet, but global warming could also be linked to more black people being alive today than ever before.

JJJJ, that was pretty much the same logic you used, it simply sounds less convincing because it does not serve certain, um, stereotypes.