Fixing The Race Thing

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Kuz wrote:
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.[/quote]

KUZ . . . yeah . . . actually, I started a thread early this weekend devoted to the question of black violence. The purpose of THIS thread was to say . . . OK, can we at least agree that the black community IS IN TROUBLE (even if you don’t agree that it’s more violent)? What can we do about it?

Unfortunately, it didn’t work. Too many people are concerned with trashing me.

////////////////

I also wanted to respond to this earlier question you asked:

YOU SAID: “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. . . . many blacks do not have the resources to hire good attornies to represent them in court. They must rely . . . So what are you basing your statistics on?”

First, I’m using FBI National Crime Statistics. These are compile each year; last year available is 2003 . . . 2004 is only out in draft.

There is injustice in the criminal justice system due to unequal legal representation but it affects both black AND white. So poor whites get screwed just like poor blacks. Of course, if more blacks go into the system to begin with, you’ll see more blacks convicted.

Somenone raised this point earlier . . . 38% of people arrested are black (compared to a 12.7% black population). That’s a lot of people flowing into the system.

Now, that’s a NATIONAL average. In some communities, 90% are black . . . in other communities 90% are white. Typically, when you have a Metropolitan Statistical Area with a large black population, they will account for a higher number of arrests . . . even if they’re not the majority.

Acually though, jurors appear to have more to do with black conviction rates than attorneys. Here is a TERRIFIC article on that subject: http://www.chicagoreporter.com/2001/8-2001/jury/jurygraph1.htm

Another very important factor is the relationship of criminal to victim. I read one study looked at the prisoners in one Death Row. The highest conviction rate was when a black male killed a white female, followed by black male killing white male. Black ,ale killing black female was next, followed by by black male killing black male.

Of course, the study was done by an anti-death penalty group and they believe the death penalty is discriminatory.

Another interesting Dept Of Justice study looked at 540 spouse murder cases in the 75 largest counties in America. They found that 55% of the murderers were black (overwhelmingly male).

Now that’s a fascinating statistic . . . not only because blacks make up only 13% of the population . . . but because 43% of black men have never married and 16% are either widowed or divorced.

In other words . . . a population that’s only 13% to begin with and in which only 43% of men 15 years or older are married . . . killed 55% of their spouses.

Look . . . this doesn’t mean that I think YOU are violent (I’m assuming you’re black) any more than the black family across the street from me is.

But if you are black (and especially a black male) government stats show that you do belong to a SOCIAL GROUP that is very violent.

The question is, what do we do about it? How can we prevent another New Orleans?

62

[quote]lincono wrote:
please remember when you argue with a Californian, that they just reelected Barby Boxer, so facts and common sense are out the window.[/quote]

Honestly, I’m getting tired of this. During the past few months I have been travelling a lot and I am VERY tired of hearing people making those kind of comments about Californians. Not that it surprises me coming from people that are already prone to bigotry, but it has to stop.

Sure, we’re a bunch of idiots. I say you get rid of us and let us become a independent. We’d “just” be the World’s 5th largest economy then, but since we’re such dim bulbs, we wouldn’t care.

And how about your state? Where would your state stand if you weren’t part of the Union?

63

[quote]haney wrote:
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. [/quote]

HANEY . . . OK . . . if that’s the kind of world you want to live in.

Professor X, Randman, Lothario and all the rest should not be speaking for the “majority” because they don’t know how to debate facts. Character Assassination is not “debate.”

We just saw a large American city devolve into savagery. Yet a thread devoted to understanding why and what can be done about it turns into a name-calling circus.

SOCIO-ECONOMICS are part of the answer . . . but only part. The socio-economic plight of black people is NOT UNIQUE TO BLACK PEOPLE. It is shared by many social groups . . . who DO NOT act like blacks do.

I can’t make it any clearer . . . and ignoring it like these “spokesmen” do isn’t going to fix anything. It only serves to perpetuate the problem.

64

While I?m at it, I developed a second theory.

Black people don?t raise the temperature, white people cool it.

It?s the albedo effect of the white skin.

65

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Are we going to get an apology from you? My bet is on no, and that’s fine… because we have wasted entirely too much time on you already.[/quote]

Just wanted to say that was a great post, lothario. Really nice work.

Also, I wanted to make sure this was clear: as you and orion both mention, statistics can be used to prove ANY point, including completely opposite points in the same area. My wife’s specialty is Statistics, and she has a specific class where she goes through the exercise of proving completely outrageous stuff using statistics, just to show her students how useless – and dangerous — statistics can be, outside the realm of pure science, like quantum physics…

66

[quote]orion wrote:
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.

JJJJ, that was pretty much the same logic you used, [/quote]

ORION . . . no, nothing like the logic I used. Do you understand logic, sir?

This is not a logical statement: “Black people live in Africa. It’s hot in Africa. Therefore black people raise the temperature.”

This is:

If a minority is responsible for half the murders in a population then that minority is VIOLENT

Black people are a minority (13%) and are responsible for 49% of all murders

67

[quote] FROM POST:

One of the most popular responses I got seemed to be that it all had to do with black poverty and a history of repression. As one man said, he lived close to a poor white community and he was sure that:

?In a NO type situation they would not have stolen Nikes. No, they would have stolen guns and drugs, and then gone for jewelry stores and any place else with valuables, seeing this as their chance to “make it”. Why are they different from me? It is totally a question of their socio-economic class. So, I think that if you flooded Greene county VA. you would see the same behavior.?QUOTE:

Well . . . with all due respect . . . that’s not supported by anecdotal evidence.

Mostly “poor-white-trash” communities in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama WERE hit just as hard as NO and the citizens did not turn into savages. We saw huge floods along the Mississippi River in the early 90s . . . where many communities were poor and white . . . and you did not see the anarchy and chaos you see in NO. When Hurricane Andrew hit Homestead, it wiped out entire communities of very poor migrants, Hispanics and whites . . . yet that city did not descend into savagery and chaos.[/quote]

  1. If you want some evidence that it is a socio-economic thing, come on down. I will take you to some places in VA where you literally can find yourself in a fistfight for looking at someone the wrong way. You speak of black men preferring settling things by violence more so than whites. Bullshit. Come see.

  2. NO is a special case, compared to the other locations hit. I don’t think we have any other large urban centers demolished. Also, to reiterate a point from my original post, those causing problemms were a small part of the population. Did you even see the coverage? I saw a lot of terrified, devastated people, not angry mobs.

68

[quote]hspder wrote:
lincono wrote:
please remember when you argue with a Californian, that they just reelected Barby Boxer, so facts and common sense are out the window.

Honestly, I’m getting tired of this. During the past few months I have been travelling a lot and I am VERY tired of hearing people making those kind of comments about Californians. Not that it surprises me coming from people that are already prone to bigotry, but it has to stop.

Sure, we’re a bunch of idiots. I say you get rid of us and let us become a independent. We’d “just” be the World’s 5th largest economy then, but since we’re such dim bulbs, we wouldn’t care.

And how about your state? Where would your state stand if you weren’t part of the Union?
[/quote]

According to you, my state would be the “World’s 5th largest economy”.

69

[quote]lincono wrote:
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.
[/quote]

I don’t know who you’re talking about but I’m a white republican.

70

[quote]hspder wrote:
statistics can be used to prove ANY point, including completely opposite points in the same area.
[/quote]

Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.

-Aaron Levenstein

71

[quote]randman wrote:
lincono wrote:
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.

I don’t know who you’re talking about but I’m a white republican.[/quote]

What’s your point?

72

hankr wrote: 1) If you want some evidence that it is a socio-economic thing, come on down. I will take you to some places in VA where you literally can find yourself in a fistfight for looking at someone the wrong way. You speak of black men preferring settling things by violence more so than whites. Bullshit. Come see.

Come see what . . . a bunch of asshole rednecks? No thanks. I live in Texas. I have plenty right here. Come on HANKR . . . think! We’re talking about the behavior of a SOCIAL GROUP . . . we’re making broad generalities to help us define a problem and then focus on specifics. I’m sure I can show you black areas in VA just as bad. That’s not the point . . . what we have to do is compare the black and white populations of VA and look at their criminal statistics.

hankr also wrote: 2) NO is a special case, compared to the other locations hit. I don’t think we have any other large urban centers demolished. Also, to reiterate a point from my original post, those causing problemms were a small part of the population.

OK . . . good points. But consider this. Biloxi was a fairly large population area too. So was Homestead. So was Anchorage. Many communities destroyed by floods along the Mississippi River were urban centers. For my thesis to be wrong you have to show me that when these mostly white areas were destroyed, the white social group reacted like the social group did in NO.

The “it was only a small group” point is a good one. But here’s the problem with it.

Let’s say that only 0.5% (half a percent) of the black people in NO behaved savagely. That means that 5,000 of the over one million blacks acted like assholes while the other 995,000 did not.

You’re still left with the question WHY?

More importantly, you still have to ask . . . did 0.5% of the population of mostly white areas react the same way? Was their level of violence the same?

Why not?

So yes, it’s valid to point out that criminals only make up a tiny percent of a social group. But unfortunately, their influence is much greater than their size.

Thanks for raising some excellent, well-considered points.

73

[quote]hspder wrote:
statistics can be used to prove ANY point, including completely opposite points in the same area. My wife’s specialty is Statistics, and she has a specific class where she goes through the exercise of proving completely outrageous stuff using statistics, just to show her students how useless – and dangerous — statistics can be, outside the realm of pure science, like quantum physics…
[/quote]

I see . . . so the study of society and individuals is not a “pure” science?

Freud is spinning in his grave.

Well . . . we like to say that statistics can be used to prove or disprove anything . . . but that’s not really true. If it was, there would be no such thing as “science.”

My thesis, placed in a logical syllogism is:

  1. A minority can be considered “violent” if they murder at rates higher than their percentage of the population

  2. Blacks (who comprise less than 13% of the population) commit half the murders (49%) . . . 400 frigging percent the expected rate . . .

  3. Therefore blacks are more violent

Now, that is both a logically VALID and logically TRUE conclusion. Please see what statistics you can use to prove it either FALSE or INVALID.

74

[quote]JJJJ wrote:

If a minority is responsible for half the murders in a population then that minority is VIOLENT
[/quote]

Ok.

Let?s just replace minority with black. I think that is not entirely unfair.

“If black people are responsible for half the murders in a population then black people are violent.”

THIS is the statement you have actually made. You are making two steps more because of “black people are a minority” AND THEN “this minority is responsible for more than…” but what it comes down to is the paragraph above.

What about black people that do not live in a country where they are a minority? Are they also more violent than white people of their society? How about erithrean jews. Do they form gangs in Jerusalem?s inner city? If so, why, if not, why not? Are black europeans more violent than white europeans?

If a minority shows violent behaviour that only means it shows violent behaviour. If that same minority happens to have pink fur that is an interesting fact, but to conclude that pink fur leads to violent behaviour would be a bit early, don?t you think?

If someone wanted to jump to that conclusion however, he might find it easy to do so.

75

[quote]lincono wrote:
randman wrote:
lincono wrote:
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.

I don’t know who you’re talking about but I’m a white republican.

What’s your point?
[/quote]

Well, you called out people arguing with JJJJ that are californians voting for Boxer. Since I have been his most vocal critic and and a Californian, your assumptions are incorrect. That’s my point.

76

[quote]JJJJ wrote:
hankr wrote: 1) If you want some evidence that it is a socio-economic thing, come on down. I will take you to some places in VA where you literally can find yourself in a fistfight for looking at someone the wrong way. You speak of black men preferring settling things by violence more so than whites. Bullshit. Come see.

Come see what . . . a bunch of asshole rednecks? No thanks. I live in Texas. I have plenty right here. Come on HANKR . . . think! We’re talking about the behavior of a SOCIAL GROUP . . . we’re making broad generalities to help us define a problem and then focus on specifics. I’m sure I can show you black areas in VA just as bad. That’s not the point . . . what we have to do is compare the black and white populations of VA and look at their criminal statistics.

hankr also wrote: 2) NO is a special case, compared to the other locations hit. I don’t think we have any other large urban centers demolished. Also, to reiterate a point from my original post, those causing problemms were a small part of the population.

OK . . . good points. But consider this. Biloxi was a fairly large population area too. So was Homestead. So was Anchorage. Many communities destroyed by floods along the Mississippi River were urban centers. For my thesis to be wrong you have to show me that when these mostly white areas were destroyed, the white social group reacted like the social group did in NO.

The “it was only a small group” point is a good one. But here’s the problem with it.

Let’s say that only 0.5% (half a percent) of the black people in NO behaved savagely. That means that 5,000 of the over one million blacks acted like assholes while the other 995,000 did not.

You’re still left with the question WHY?

More importantly, you still have to ask . . . did 0.5% of the population of mostly white areas react the same way? Was their level of violence the same?

Why not?

So yes, it’s valid to point out that criminals only make up a tiny percent of a social group. But unfortunately, their influence is much greater than their size.

Thanks for raising some excellent, well-considered points.[/quote]

There’s a definite pattern to JJJJ’s debate/posting style. First, he repeats his the same point over and over again and adds words like irrefutable. This strategy of repeating the same point over again is to hopefully make it pass for truth that others will buy.

Second, he talks down to anyone challenging his points by saying cute terms like you need to “think” and “do research”. He then puts forth questionable statistics based on one factor only(skin color) and ignores all other factors and makes his conclusion by stating the same point over and over again. Nice pattern by the way, too bad you still haven’t “proved anything”.

77

[quote]JJJJ wrote:
But black poor areas are MORE VIOLENT than white poor areas.
[/quote]

Boy, JJJJ’s position continues to change. We started out with “blacks are more violent”. And then “blacks commit more murders but not hate crimes since they are not reliable statistics”. Now its black poor areas are more violent. Man, you should get a job as a politician. Your changing positions more frequently than a hooker.

His next stance will be “blacks that are poor in a high density area in the southern part of the country that have had a devastation potentially could be more more violent than whites in the same circumstance but I can’t prove it”.

Wow, this is in-depth research. Amazing. These two statistics says it all

This is what you would call statistical insignificance. How many square miles of each area? What was the racial breakdown of each area? What does majority black or white mean? 51%? 72% What was the accuracy rate of reporting for both areas? How many other areas are you comparing; just two? JJJJ, your just going to have to come up with something better than this. Soldier, do some more research. Think!!!

Points already refuted above. No conclusions can be drawn from this drivel you call research. Think! You’re out of your league on this board, soldier.

78

[quote]JJJJ wrote:
We’re talking about the behavior of a SOCIAL GROUP . . . we’re making broad generalities to help us define a problem and then focus on specifics.
[/quote]

And this is where you get yourself in trouble. Broad generalities, blanket statements, racially-biased remarks…

[quote] what we have to do is compare the black and white populations of VA and look at their criminal statistics.
[/quote]

Wrong again. JJJJ just keeps repeating the same mantra over and over. Comparing black and white populations of VA and comparing criminal statistics will NOT prove blacks are more violent; oops, now its poor blacks. I guess I’ll keep using your strategy and repeat myself as well “you need to look at many other factors beyond race to explain violence”.

Because JJJJ, that’s what criminals do. White criminals, black criminals, yellow criminals. Not too hard to understand.

What 0.5% are you talking about? In NO? Do you have a racial profile of each violent offender since this disaster struck? Do you have economic levels established for the racial groups of the city? Do you have any of these “stats” to make your claims? No, you don’t.

79

[quote]JJJJ wrote:
KUZ . . . yeah . . . actually, I started a thread early this weekend devoted to the question of black violence.
[/quote]

Selective memory JJJJ, huh? You didn’t bring up the question of black violence, you made a blanket statement of “blacks are more violent” and made statements that the data is “irrefutable”. Again, I can feel that we’re getting Piled Higher and Deeper (PHD) with your thesis.

Yes, many poor communities are in trouble. Many of them black. The only darn thing I can agree on with you.

Maybe it had something to do with the way you approached your posts. You didn’t bring up valid questions that need to be discussed. You made “racially-charged” statements and then backed it up with arrogrant statements like “the data is irrefutable”. What did you expect from the T-Nation community: an open-arms group hug session?

[JJJJ strategy of repeating things until people accept them as truth]

Again, looking at one factor skin color doesn’t prove your point of “blacks are more violent”.

[/JJJJ strategy of repeating things until people accept them as truth]

Again, you haven’t proven crap with your statistics but you keep repeating this point over and over again. Pinning violence on skin color is just not holding water. Someone made a great point that you don’t see rich black people rioting. Enough with your tired statements.

Your drippy altruism is kinda nauseating here. I’m sure the black community would rest assured knowing that your looking out for their best interests.

80

[quote]JJJJ wrote:
Professor X, Randman, Lothario and all the rest should not be speaking for the “majority” because they don’t know how to debate facts.
[/quote]

JJJJ strategy #1 (repeat, repeat, repeat until truth): Repeat your prognosis as ultimately true backed up with “facts” enough times and maybe someone will start believing it as true.

JJJJ strategy #2 (talk down to posters who dare challenge you to make it seem like your right and their wrong}: Professor X, Randman, Lothario don’t know how to debate “facts”. I love how you keep using your subjective statistics as “facts”. Again, getting to be a tired old argument that doesn’t hold water. Please, I’ve read, seen, heard about your precious FBI statistics and they’re statistics, not facts.

Oh, I’m the most guilty of your character assasination but your still using another JJJJ strategy - deflection. I, as well as others, have counterargued your statistics that you are positioning as facts but your focusing only on the character assasination. And I don’t take back any of it. Not with your racially-biased blanket statements that defined you and your bigoted threads.

There have already been others that have shown other races acting the same way during disaster but you are still trying to classify it as a “black” problem. Nice try, JJJJ, I admire your tenacity soldier.

I believe this is the first admission by JJJJ that its not only skin color. Amazing. His ever-changing position continues to roll along.

You haven’t proven blacks “act” any different in a devastation over any other racial group. So, again, keep repeating your mantras and maybe some impressionable youth on this board will take your word as truth, oh wise one.

[quote]
I can’t make it any clearer . . . and ignoring it like these “spokesmen” do isn’t going to fix anything. It only serves to perpetuate the problem.[/quote]

So I guess that makes you the “spokesmen” extraordinaire for the plight of the poor violent black people since you’ve proven your irrefutable statistics and the rest of us spokesman can not even touch your almightly logic and tight arguments…Puhleeeze!