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.
[/quote]
Their influence is inconsequential as long as “…we’re talking about the behavior of a SOCIAL GROUP . . . we’re making broad generalities to help us define a problem …”.
Their size is the only thing that matters when trying to make generalizations about a group. If the criminals don’t represent all black people, then they can’t be used as an example of what black people are like. Criminals, particularly if they’ve just been set free in a disaster, are violent, for the most part. You don’t project that behavior onto humanity in general.
You also mentioned that poor black people and poor white people live under the same socio-economic conditions, but that’s not at all true. In North America, it’s basically all black people that live under different conditions than all white people. Black people are feared at night or walking down the street, refused jobs, stopped by police for no reason and generally treated as if they’re criminals based only on the colour of their skin. Even in areas where you think racism doesn’t exist, it does, just less aggressively, to the point where people who aren’t victims of it don’t know it’s there.
[quote]randman wrote:
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?
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.[/quote]
If you argue from a liberal, illogical point of view, it doesn’t matter what you call yourself; there are plenty of liberal, white republicans. Did you vote for Boxer or Jones?
I am sick and tired of the criminal bashing in this thread. You make it sound as if all criminals are the violent scum of the earth.
There are gazillions of hard working callgirls, marihuana-dealers, smugglers and money laundering experts that make your and my live better through dedicated hard work and they deserve our respect.
Let’s look at some scientific research on race, violence and crime. Unlike stated earlier, there is quite a lot of research being done. Even Wikipedia offers quite a good starting point for the discussion - so much for the “PC argument” that no one would dare to touch the subject…
As usual in my longer posts - sorry Mod, I think it’s important - quotes will be marked with quotation marks, my comments in italics and deleted text with […])
“The overrepresentation of blacks in U.S. crime statistics has existed since the turn of the twentieth century. The census of 1910 showed more blacks than whites in jail, in the north as well as in the south. Official figures from the 1930s through the 1950s showed that the number of blacks arrested for crimes of violence in proportion to the number of whites ranged from 6:1 to 16:1. These statistics have not improved in the interim.
[…]
The global nature of the racial pattern in crime is shown in data collated from INTERPOL using the 1984 and 1986 yearbooks. After analyzing information on nearly 100 countries, I reported, in the 1990 issue of the Canadian Journal of Criminology, that African and Caribbean countries had double the rate of violent crime (an aggregate of murder, rape, and serious assault) than did European countries, and three times more than did countries in the Pacific Rim. Averaging over the three crimes and two time periods, the figures per 100,000 population were, respectively, 142, 74, and 43.”
Ok, so far it looks like there is a higher prevalence of violent crimes within “black” communities. And this observation is indeed nothing new. It is interesting though, where the argument goes when it comes to reasons:
"[…] Testosterone and the Family
The breakdown of the black family and the strengths of the Asian family are often used to explain the crime pattern within the United States. Learning to follow rules is thought to depend on family socialization. Since the 1965 Moynihan Report documented the high rates of marital dissolution, frequent heading of families by women, and numerous illegitimate births, the figures cited as evidence for the instability of the black family in America have tripled.
A similarly constituted matrifocal black family exists in the Caribbean with father-absent households, lack of paternal certainty, and separate bookkeeping by spouses. The Caribbean pattern, like the American one, is typically attributed to the long legacy of slavery. However, the slavery hypothesis does not fit data from sub-Saharan Africa. After reviewing long-standing African marriage systems in the 1989 issue of Ethology and Sociobiology, anthropologist Patricia Draper of Pennsylvania State University concluded: “coupled with low investment parenting is a mating pattern that permits early sexual activity, loose economic and emotional ties between spouses… and in many cases the expectation on the part of both spouses that the marriage will end in divorce or separation, followed by the formation of another union. "
The African marriage system may partly depend on traits of temperament. Biological variables such as the sex hormone testosterone are implicated in the tendency toward multiple relationships as well as the tendency to commit crime. One study, published in the 1993 issue of Criminology by Alan Booth and D. Wayne Osgood, showed clear evidence of a testosterone-crime link based on an analysis of 4,462 U.S. military personnel. Other studies have linked testosterone to an aggressive and impulsive personality, to a lack of empathy, and to sexual behavior. Testosterone levels explain why young men are disproportionately represented in crime statistics relative to young women, and why younger people are more trouble-prone than older people. Testosterone reliably differentiates the sexes and is known to decline with age.
Ethnic differences exist in average level of testosterone. Studies show 3 to 19 percent more testosterone in black college students and military veterans than in their white counterparts. Studies among the Japanese show a correspondingly lower amount of testosterone than among white Americans. Medical research has focused on cancer of the prostate, one determinant of which is testosterone. Black men have higher rates of prostate cancer than do white men who in turn have higher rates than do Oriental men.”
Now this will I guess go down like a lead balloon in the T-Nation community, as the holy T is under suspicion of being one of the contributing factors for criminal behaviour among the seemingly more “potent” black men…
[…] Intelligence
The role of low cognitive ability in disposing a child to delinquency is established even within the same family where a less able sibling is observed to engage in more deviant behavior than an advantaged sibling. Problem behaviors begin early in life and manifest themselves as an unwillingness or inability to follow family rules. Later, drug abuse, early onset of sexual activity, and more clearly defined illegal acts make up the broad-based syndrome predicted by low intelligence.
Racial differences exist in average IQ-test scores and again the pattern extends well beyond the United States. The global literature on IQ was reviewed by Richard Lynn in the 1991 issue of Mankind Quarterly. Caucasoids of North America, Europe, and Australasia generally obtained mean IQs of around 100. Mongoloids from both North America and the Pacific Rim obtained slightly higher means, in the range of 101 to 111. Africans from south of the Sahara, African-Americans, and African-Caribbeans (including those living in Britain) obtained mean IQs ranging from 70 to 90.
The question remains of whether test scores are valid measures of group differences in mental ability. Basically, the answer hinges on whether the tests are culture-bound. Doubts linger in many quarters, although a large body of technical work has disposed of this problem among those with psychometric expertise, as shown in the book of surveys by Snyderman and Rothman. This is because the tests show similar patterns of internal item consistency and predictive validity for all groups, and the same differences are to be found on relatively culture-free tests.
Novel data about speed of decision making show that the racial differences in mental ability are pervasive. Cross-cultural investigations of reaction times have been done on nine- to twelve-year olds from six countries. In these elementary tasks, children must decide which of several lights is on, or stands out from others, and move a hand to press a button. All children can perform the tasks in less than one second, but more intelligent children, as measured by traditional IQ tests, perform the task faster than do less intelligent children. Richard Lynn found Oriental children from Hong Kong and Japan to be faster in decision time than white children from Britain and Ireland who were faster than black children from Africa. Arthur Jensen has reported the same three-way pattern in California." http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/Issues/bell-curve/rushton-crime.html
Now so far, it seems like there are solid reasons to link “race” to certain types of antisocial behaviour, based on the internationally collated data, backed by studies on family structures within “black” communities and biological denominators. This pattern, if it is based on membership of a defined “race” should be therefore pretty stable throughout at least recent history. But here is, where things start to be less clear:
“In 2001, the chances of going to prison were highest among black males (32.2%)and Hispanic males (17.2%) and lowest among white males (5.9%). The lifetime chances of going to prison among black females (5.6%) were nearly as high as for white males. Hispanic females (2.2%) and white females (0.9%) had much lower chances of going to prison.
As a result of changes in first incarceration and mortality rates between 1974 and 2001, black males experienced a greater increase in the chances of going to prison over the course of a lifetime than any other group (from 13.4% in 1974 to 32.2% in 2001). Hispanic males experienced the second largest increase (from 4.0% in 1974 to 17.2% in 2001). White males experienced a smaller increase (from 2.2% in 1974 to 5.9% in 2001).” http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/piusp01.txt
Now this is getting interesting, as there must be other factors than “race” that play a role. Let’s take the opportunity to look a little bit more into the concept of “race”. We tend to use it, but there is indeed a lively discussion if it even is an appropriate biological category:
"The delicacy of this definition has left the issue much in debate, especially among physical anthropologists, for if clines lead to large areas of near-homogeneity, such as Kenya, Sweden and China, then the people in these areas seem marked off by delimiters resembling nothing so much as the traditional physiological touchstones of “race”. Currently, the question of whether human genetic variation is better described as clinal [ Cline - Wikipedia ] (i.e. no races) or cladistic (i.e. races are real) is largely fading.
The problem arises of distinguishing black Africans as a racial group; it doesn’t work because it is a paraphyletic classification. In other words, under a phylogenetic classification, considering black Africans as a single racial group would require one to include every living person on Earth within that single African “race”, because the genetic variation of the rest of the world represents essentially a single subtree within that of Africa. Also, it has long been known that groups such as the Khoisan were as different from other sub-Saharan groups as are Europeans and Asians (though even with the Khoisan the distinction is no longer so clearcut, as a large amount of intermarriage with both Europeans and Bantu-language speakers has occurred over the last three centuries).
[…]
Race as a social construct and populationism
Historians, anthropologists and social scientists often describe human races as a social construct, preferring instead the term population, which can be given a clear operational definition. Even those who reject the formal concept of race, however, still use the word race in day-to-day speech. This may either be a matter of semantics, or an effect of an underlying cultural significance of race in racist societies. Regardless of the name, a working concept of sub-species grouping can be useful, because in the absence of cheap and widespread genetic tests, various race-linked gene mutations (see Cystic fibrosis, Lactose intolerance, Tay-Sachs Disease and Sickle cell anemia) are difficult to address without recourse to a category between “individual” and “species”. As genetic tests for such conditions become cheaper, and as detailed haplotype maps and SNP databases become available, the need to resort to race should diminish. This is fortunate, as recent interracial mating is reducing the predictive power of race. For example, most babies born with Tay-Sachs in North America at present are not from Jewish families, despite stereotypes to contrary.
In everyday speech, race often describes populations better defined as ethnic groups, often leading to discrepancies between scientific views on race and popular usage of the term. For instance in many parts of the United States, categories such as Hispanic or Latino are viewed to constitute a race, though others see Hispanic as a linguistic and cultural grouping coming from a variety of backgrounds. In Europe, such a distinction, suggesting that South Europeans are not European or white, would seem odd at least or possibly even insulting. In the United States, in what is referred to as the one-drop rule, the term Black subsumes people with a broad range of ancestries under one label, even though many who are termed Black could be more accurately described as white through simple anthropologic or taxonomic method. In much of Europe groups such as Roma and Turks are commonly defined as racially distinct from White Europeans, though these groups could be considered “Caucasian” by old physical anthropological methods which employed finite nose measurements as the standard form of racial classifaction."
Huh, did that last paragraph discuss the possibility that “race” as a taxonomic category is an oversimplification at best? There is more to come:
[…] Genetic definitions of race
Some scientists argue that in determining overall relatedness the entire genetic cohorts of groups must be compared, and that when this is done, one can recover the traditional racial groupings, provided one uses enough of the right markers. However, one must decide how finely one chooses to distinguish between groups, such that one can determine two races (Africans vs. non-Africans), three, four or more. Thus, the number of races discovered by these methods will be arbitrary. Also, some of the groups which emerge as “races” under closer scrutiny would hardly be recognized as such in the conventional sense.
The geneticist A.W.F. Edwards argued in 2003 that race exists (see Lewontin’s Fallacy). He points out that most of the information that distinguishes populations is not simply the sum of variation of individual genes (the 6 percent), but is variation hidden in the correlation structure of the data. The argument is technical and difficult to follow for those with no statistical training, but is presented in detail in the paper by Edwards (the journal BioEssays volume 25 pages 798-801). It was this argument of Edwards that finally convinced Richard Dawkins, Professor of Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, UK (the author of The Selfish Gene) in his new 2004 book The Ancestor’s Tale, that race in mankind is of taxonomic value, in other words, races do exist, despite the fact that the boundaries between races are blurred."
[i]I can’t decide if “race” as a category does exist or not - neither seem the biologists. This is obviously an ongoing discussion. I find it quite problematic though, to state, as has happened in the two threads on the topic, that there is a clear link between “race” and violence - facing the danger that science might come up with the explanation that “race” as used commonly does not even exist.
But let’s get back to something that ZEB - with whom I often do not agree, but in this case I do - has re-entered into the debate: The issue of social factors such as poverty:[/i]
"Similarly, despite rising household incomes for all races, the median household income for African Americans was 54 percent less than for white households, and the median household income was 35 percent less for Latino than for white households. On average, 24 percent of adults over 25 years of age held at least a college diploma in 2000, yet there are stark differences by race and ethnicity. The percentages were 44 percent for Asians, 27 percent for whites, 14 percent for African Americans, and 10 percent for Latinos. Suburbs now have nearly as many poor residents as do central cities. The U.S. Census Bureau reports that, as of 20024, essentially half of the poor residents of U.S. metropolitan regions lived in the suburbs (13.3 million, compared with 13.8 million in central cities). Yet, while poverty?s geography affects entire metropolitan regions, its burdens fall disproportionately on nonwhite persons. The overall U.S. poverty rate in 2002 was 12.1 percent, yet ranged from 8 percent for whites to approximately 22 and 24 percent for Latinos and African Americans. One reason for these differences is continuing segregation in American metropolitan areas sustained, at least in part, by housing market practices. Researchers have uncovered race-based practices in real estate and mortgage lending that restrict families? opportunities to find safe and affordable housing. They have found that African Americans and Latinos at all income levels are discriminated against by real estate agents, who show them only a small subset of the market and steer whites away from communities with people of color.5 In addition, mortgage lenders systematically lend less mortgage money to African Americans and Latinos compared to whites of comparable income and background.6 These practices do not stop at central city borders, but also affect large parts of suburbia. A recent study of metropolitan Boston, for example, showed that nearly half of black homebuyers were concentrated in only 7 of 126 communities.7 IRP?s Minority Suburbanization and Racial Change project is examining the how and why of suburbanization trends and neighborhood change with detailed analysis of fifteen large metropolitan areas.
[i]Now that indeed sounds like a smoking gun to me: There is evidence of massive social inequality, linked to (perceived) “racial” difference. Now the argument that “non-black” poor people don’t resort to violent crime starts falling apart, when you see the parallels between level of inequality due to perceived “racial” status and delinquency: “Blacks” worst off, “Hispanics” (if they can actually be defined as a coherent group at all) bad off, “Whites” best off, “Asians” depending on what factor you are looking at.
Is this a false correlation? I would say it is not:[/i]
"Neighborhoods plagued by high levels of jobless-ness are more likely to experience low levels of social organization: the two go hand in hand. High rates of jobless-ness trigger other neighborhood problems that undermine social organization, ranging from crime, gang violence, and drug trafficking to family breakups and problems in the organization of family life.
Neighborhoods that offer few legitimate employment opportunities, inadequate job information networks, and poor schools lead to the disappearance of work. That is, where jobs are scarce, where people rarely, if ever, have the opportunity to help their friends and neighbors find jobs, and where there is a disruptive or degraded school life purporting to prepare youngsters for eventual participation in the workforce, many people eventually lose their feeling of connectedness to work in the formal economy; they no longer expect work to be a regular, and regulating, force in their lives. In the case of young people, they may grow up in an environment that lacks the idea of work as a central experience of adult life ? they have little or no labor-force attachment. These circumstances also increase the likelihood that the residents will rely on illegitimate sources of income, thereby further weakening their attachment to the legitimate labor market.
On the other hand, many inner-city ghetto residents who maintain a connection with the formal labor market - that is, who continue to be employed mostly in low-wage jobs - are, in effect, working against all odds. They somehow manage to work steadily despite the lack of work-support networks (car pools, informal job information networks), institutions (good schools and training programs), and systems (child care and transportation) that most of the employed population in this country rely on. Moreover, the travel costs, child care costs, and other employment-related expenses consume a significant portion of their already meager incomes. In other words, in order to fully appreciate the problems of employment experienced by inner-city ghetto workers, one has to understand that there is both a unique reality of work and a culture of work.
[…]
The more central cities are plagued by joblessness, dysfunctional schools, and crime, the more the suburbs undergo a decline.
Accordingly, as we examine the adaptations and responses of ghetto residents to persistent joblessness, it should be emphasized that the disappearance of work in many inner-city neighborhoods is the function of a number of factors beyond their control. Too often, as reflected in the current public policy debates on welfare reform, the discussion of behavior and social responsibility fails to mention the structural underpinnings of poverty and welfare. The focus is mainly on the shortcomings of individuals and families and not on the structural and social changes in the society at large that have made life so miserable for many inner-city ghetto residents or that have produced certain unique responses and behavior patterns over time.
The disappearance of work in many inner-city neighborhoods is in part related to the nationwide decline in the fortunes of low-skilled workers. Fundamental structural changes in the new global economy, including changes in the distribution of jobs and in the level of education required to obtain employment, resulted in the simultaneous occurrence of increasing jobless- ness and declining real wages for low- skilled workers. The decline of the mass production system, the decreasing availability of lower-skilled blue-collar jobs, and the growing importance of training and education in the higher-growth industries adversely affected the employment rates and earnings of low- skilled black workers, many of whom are concentrated in inner-city ghettos. The growing suburbanization of jobs has aggravated the employment woes of poor inner-city workers. Most ghetto residents cannot afford an automobile and therefore have to rely on public transit systems that make the connection between inner-city neighborhoods and suburban job locations difficult and time-consuming.
The reader should also be reminded that changes in the class, racial, and demographic composition of inner-city neighborhoods contributed to the high percentage of jobless adults who continue to live there. The proportion of nonpoor families and prime-age working adults has decreased. Today, joblessness is more strongly associated with poverty than in previous years. In the face of increasing and prolonged joblessness, the declining proportion of nonpoor families and the overall depopulation make it more difficult to sustain basic neighborhood institutions or to achieve adequate levels of social organization. The declining presence of working- and middle-class blacks also deprives ghetto neighborhoods of key resources, including structural resources (such as residents with income to sustain neighborhood services) and cultural resources (such as conventional role models for neighborhood children). The economic marginality of the ghetto poor is cruelly reinforced, therefore, by conditions in the neighborhoods in which they live.
Finally, it is important to keep the following point in focus. In addition to changes in the economy and in the class, racial, and demographic composition of inner-city ghetto neighborhoods, certain government programs and policies contributed, over the last fifty years, to the evolution of jobless ghettos. Prominent among these are the early actions of the FHA in withholding mortgage capital from inner-city neighborhoods, the manipulation of market incentives that trapped blacks in the inner cities and lured middle-class whites to the suburbs, the construction of massive federal housing projects in inner-city neighborhoods, and, since 1980, the New Federalism, which, through its insistence on localized responses to social problems, resulted in drastic cuts in spending on basic urban programs. Just when the problems of social dislocation in jobless neighborhoods have escalated, the city has fewer resources with which to address them. http://www.lib.niu.edu/ipo/ii961228.html
[i]Although I was reluctant to relate the “race” debate to NO, I would like to point out to the picture that was painted on NO’s development in the last decades, including “white flight” to the suburbs and a ghettoisation in the poor, mainly black neighbourhoods and especially housing projects, creating crime and fostering civil unrest. Give everyone a gun and let them starve a few days, you will get pretty irrational reactions. Is it because “they” are biologically “black”? No, more likely, it is because they are socially declared “black” and actively (see above) kept from the pursuit of happiness. Is that an excuse? No, but it explains pretty much the prevalence of gangsters and the evil deeds they do.
Summary: I accept that there is more violent crime in “black” communities world-wide. But the evidence pointing to a “racial” explanation, especially as “race” as a biological category is far from undisputed, does not convince me so far. It seems more likely that social segregation as a cause for poverty, stressed social coherence and lack of perspective are the main contributing factors to the seemingly clear correlation between being “black” and being violent.
As I stated in the first thread, I think it is a false correlation, and so far adding the “Fixing” to the thread’s title hasn’t helped at all to move the argument into a more rational sphere.[/i]
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.[/quote]
Debating you on this issue is a waste of time. Why you may ask?
Race, enviroment, and any other scenario does not make the person. The person makes the Scenario. So I don’t care if you are disabled, black, white, or any thing else. You determine your actions not your circumstances. So you can have studies on this all you want, but you can’t define what makes a person excel vs. a person who breaks down into savegery.
This is pointless because you can’t define someone with a study.
Post like this are as bad as saying an education is the only way to be successful. An education is a good way to guarantee success, but it is by no means the only way to success.
orion wrote:
What about black people that do not live in a country where they are a minority?
I actually addressed that earlier but I believe the Moderator quashed it because he was afraid it might be too inflamatory. So I’ll keep my response . . . shall we say . . . mild.
Check for yourself the crime rates in black areas in Johannesburg and Rio de Janeiro. The first is interesting because you can draw a contrast before and after white rule. The second is interesting because blacks in Rio are highly clustered in certain neighborhoods . . . much more so than in the US.
Then, go check out the “crime rate” in Haiti, Rwanda, the Congo, Uganda . . . I
[quote]lincono wrote:
randman wrote:
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?
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.
If you argue from a liberal, illogical point of view, it doesn’t matter what you call yourself; there are plenty of liberal, white republicans. Did you vote for Boxer or Jones?
[/quote]
Bill Jones, dude. I would never vote for Boxer, she’s a lunatic. I actually am pretty darn conservative. Just because I don’t have a color-bias doesn’t mean I’m a liberal.
Everything that has been argued and discussed has truth in both sides of this debate.We as an evolving species with the ability to effect our outcome should and are responsible to correct these problems.
With that being said teaching is the resposibility of the more learned.Therefore many of the shortcomings discussed fall to the more educated to solve.
Education lacks in many inner cities due to poor funding.This shortfall is dircetly related to property values and lack of tax support.{If you fail to enable a said group to better themselves through education and work experience then you have become more of the problem than the solution.}Throwing money at the problem may not be the correct awnser but support of the education system must be. For in the long run it will cost us as a society considerably less in grief and strife.
[quote]randman wrote:
lincono wrote:
randman wrote:
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?
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.
If you argue from a liberal, illogical point of view, it doesn’t matter what you call yourself; there are plenty of liberal, white republicans. Did you vote for Boxer or Jones?
Bill Jones, dude. I would never vote for Boxer, she’s a lunatic. I actually am pretty darn conservative. Just because I don’t have a color-bias doesn’t mean I’m a liberal.
[/quote]
OK, dude. At least you know she is a sick socialist. Most of this should not be about race, but about the whole transfer payment program; basically we pay poor people to breed without a penalty.
The black community is an indicator of America’s overall social fabric, basically like a canary in a mine, they show us what we’ve done with our liberal, social engineering. Admitting this is a failure will allow us as a society to discuss how to correct it, instead of arguing about statistics. How would you correct it?
This thread will not ever convince anyone you are right. 99% of people already know you are.
All this thread does is give people who want to think like jjjj arguements to use to justify their beliefs. The people you hope to sway won’t even read your posts. They’ll just read the other tripe and end up being even more convinced that their ignorant beliefs are correct.
This thread will not ever convince anyone you are right. 99% of people already know you are.
All this thread does is give people who want to think like jjjj arguements to use to justify their beliefs. The people you hope to sway won’t even read your posts. They’ll just read the other tripe and end up being even more convinced that their ignorant beliefs are correct.[/quote]
I agree. One thing this thread has shown a light on is the amazing number of racists and people who have no ability to understand what anyone else experiences. Maybe this site attracts those types. For someone who is 50 years old, it simply means that he has had 50 years to help slow advancement of unity in this country.
The other thing is, I wonder if JJJJ (or any of you lads supporting him) would have the balls to be so blatantly racist to a man like Professor X. When you can look into the eyes of a man and condemn him for his skin color, you know you are truly admirable.
Of course Prox X, being an unintelligent violence prone black man, would never debate with you… he would simply beat your asses; thats what blacks do…isn’t it?
HANEY . . . you said . . . Post like this are as bad as saying an education is the only way to be successful. An education is a good way to guarantee success, but it is by no means the only way to success. Why bother arguing over theory?
The issue I was trying to draw attention to was the violence in the black community. I think THERE’S SOMETHNG WRONG.
I don’t pretend to know if it’s genetics, economics, geography, culture, history, or some other factor. I do know that nation-wide blacks commit more crimes and fill our jails in disproportionate numbers. We also saw what happened in NO . . . which is not vastly different than behavior we’ve seen in many other cities with large black populations.
I also wanted to point out that this is a subject that’s taboo . . . and you’ve seen why on this thread. If you make any negative comments about blacks, you get trashed by nitwits who automatically assume you’re a racist, bigot, etc.
So I think it’s an issue worth discussin and that needs discussing and I’m grateful to T-Nation for having the balls to allow it.
RANDMAN . . . yeah, please STOP unless you have something (anything) valuable to add. This thread was never designed to stand ACADEMIC scrutiny . . . much less the obsessive scrutiny of some fruitcake.
I think my initial point is pretty clear and I hope I haven’t strayed too far from it . . . the black community is more violent than any other in this country.
I believe I’ve been pretty clear in saying that I DON’T KNOW if it’s genetics, culture, economics, geography, history or whatever. But I don’t rule out ANY of them, including genetics.
You’ve demanded “statistics” and I’ve given you simple numbers right out of the FBI criminal statistics. I’ve discussed murder and looked at MSAs and even compared two MSAs with roughly equal population and median income in response to someone else. I’ve also posted links to various other studies and an excellent book called THE BELL CURVE.
But no matter what evidence I show, you say it’s not enough. You also drag in some useless material of your own such as:
The Great Earthquake . . . where Japanese killed Koreans. Has no bearing on this issue. That is not a comparison of one culture to another. I think your point was to show me I was wrong in making the statement that Asian cultures don’t respond to disasters like blacks did in NO. Well you failed. My point still holds.
Lynchings. Totally useless. Says nothing about the criminality of either race. All it says is that white people murdered 3500 blacks in the 80 years between the Civil War and World War 2. It tells us nothing about black crimes during this time nor about white criminal behavior. Typical liberal bullshit . . . inflamatory but totally useless.
Hate crimes. You apparently didn’t know the difference between hate crime statistics and criminal statistics. Nor did you appear to know the uselessness of hate crime data.
I’ve tried to be civil towards you and I realize that I’ve been a little sharp in some of my responses . . . so I apologized in public for my remarks.
You poked fun at that with sarcastic references to me as “soldier.”
Yeah asshole, I was a soldier for 26 years and I’ve earned the right to exercise the freedom of speech I defended.
So feel free to continue your attacks, but as I told you before, you’re way out of your league. YOU DON’T KNOW THE MATERIAL and you have no clue as to how to even begin a debate on this issue.
After reading through 4 pages of this mind-numbing circle jerk, I have come to the conclusion that I share the same outlook as my special friend Bastard Guy: I hate everyone. Equally. Almost.
Californians and Yankees are naurally at the top of the shit list. But they can’t help it. They were made that way.
Professor X wrote:
For someone who is 50 years old, it simply means that he has had 50 years to help slow advancement of unity in this country.
PROFESSOR . . . my record on working with black people both in and out of the military is pretty damned good. This is just another ignorant remark on your part . . . and frankly . . . a disappointing one. With a name like “professor” I expected better.
“Slowed the advancement of unity” . . . with bullshit like that, you should be running for office.
Just another empty remark that sounds good.
I’ll extend the same challenge to you that I did to someone else. Move yourself and your family to any of the numerous POOR white communities in the United States. I have one down the street . . . come on over . . . plenty of trailers available Live there for a year.
Then move yourself and your family to
Black Harlem, the South Bronx, Compton or Liberty City. Make sure you put up a big sign over your front door that says" I BELIEVE IN RACIAL UNITY"!
FightinIrish26 wrote:
The other thing is, I wonder if JJJJ (or any of you lads supporting him) would have the balls to be so blatantly racist to a man like Professor X. When you can look into the eyes of a man and condemn him for his skin color, you know you are truly admirable.
IRISH . . . maybe less fighting and more thinking might do you some good.
I don’t condemn anybody. I’m not “blatantly racist.” I’d be happy to tell any black man that he’s a fool if he thinks his community isn’t in trouble.
[quote]JJJJ wrote:
RANDMAN . . . yeah, please STOP unless you have something (anything) valuable to add.
[/quote]
Sorry, I’m not going to stop until you do.
Well, the backtracking continues. Now you can stand behind your arguments. Nice.
Do I need to define character assasination for you??? Obsessive scrutiny is exactly what your posts needed to pick apart your weak, opinionated ideas on race.
Oh, you’ve danced around this depending on what parts the t-nation community has challenged you on.
Wow, again your tune is changing quite a bit now. Before it was “black people” were violent. Now its people with certain genetics, culture, economics, geography, history and possibly skin color. It looks like you’ve seen the light at least from this last paragraph.
Because statistics, facts and evidence can’t be used interchangably. And all you’ve provided is statistics and then made fantastic leaps of logic to come to your conclusions. Your right. It hasn’t been nearly enough.
How doesn’t it compare? You’ve lost me here…
I gave you multiple statistics throughout time of the violent behavior of people who happened to be white; also included black lynchings, you just didn’t “think” or “research” the issue. You choose to ignore it because it conflicts with your hypothesis. These statistics are just as valid as the statistics you’ve provided. The only difference is I’m not going to make a ridiculous statement that white communities are more violent than other racial communities.
Wow, this is the first time I’ve been accused of a liberal agenda considering I’m a conservative republican. I’m just not a bigoted one.
Oh, I know the difference. It was just to show you that your valuable FBI statistics are not as fool proof and solid as you think. Included in FBI statistics are hate crime statistics and regular violent crime statistics. You obviously missed that point entirely. Think!!!
Puhleeze! You just called me a fruit cake three paragraphs ago. Apology not accepted.
Wow, I’m really getting under you skin now, aren’t I? Sorry to have to remind you JJJJ, you’re the one that first used that label on me.
Again. You apologize for your sharp comments a paragraph ago and now call me an asshole again. Are you apologizing are you continuing your tirade?
JJJJ strategy again. When he’s failing miserably in his arguments he’ll make statements like “your way out of your league” and “irrefutable” and “soldier” and “character assasination”.
[sarcasm]
I know, I know. We are all trying to learn from the best however. You are vastly superior to the rest of us with your enlightened intelligence, your impeccable debate style, and your thorough knowledge on the subject [/sarcasm]
This thread will not ever convince anyone you are right. 99% of people already know you are.
All this thread does is give people who want to think like jjjj arguements to use to justify their beliefs. The people you hope to sway won’t even read your posts. They’ll just read the other tripe and end up being even more convinced that their ignorant beliefs are correct.[/quote]
Point taken. I’ll think about it. Let’s just say I’m going to be monitoring everything JJJJ tries to say on these forums with regards to blacks and violence. If he gets out of hand or starts to recruit some minions, I may have to figuratively slap him down every so often.