Fixing The Race Thing

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
ChrisPowers wrote:
I also find it curious that you chose to put quotation marks around a phrase that I did not write, and then disprove THAT point. Is that not the very textbook definition of a straw man fallacy?

What I wrote was: “why are blacks responsible for so much of this country’s violent crime when they make up such a small amount of the population?”

What you quoted and disproved was: “most violent crime is committed by blacks.”

Very curious indeed.

Calm down pooky, I paraphrased you. What you wrote was:

“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?”

And THEN, you later narrowed it down to the disproportionality of race vs. violent criminal offenders. Which I will not dispute, because the facts are right there.[/quote]

Touche. You’re right, I did write that first, then clarify it later. What I meant to write was the latter. I didn’t think that blacks committed the majority of violent crimes, but as it turns out they were arrested for 50% of the murders in 2002, which is a scary statistic considering they probably made up about 12% of the population in that year. I apologize for getting carried away in my rant and missing that mistype.

[quote]What makes you different from assmonkey is the fact that you do not immediately jump to the conclusion that it is because the offenders are BLACK.

My contention is that poor and troubled people are criminals. When more black people are disproportionately poor, then they will disproportionately be criminals.[/quote]

Honestly, I think you should reread much of what he wrote. I’ve seen that accusation FLY, but I don’t recall reading anything that suggests he thinks their “blackness” makes them criminals.

It is others who immediately put blinders over their eyes and see racism when a person shines light on the hard, uncomfortable, disturbing facts above.

Now, he’s presented some data that seems to show that poverty doesn’t play enough of a role to explain the discrepancy. Again, this doesn’t mean he’s trying to prove it’s “because they’re black”, but this is a “community” in this country (I’m sure we’ve all heard the term “black community” and very few object to it). What this stat does mean is lost on me, but it DOES show us that we need to take a good HARD look at what MAY be causing this problem, because–gee whiz–maybe it just happens to be something that we can try to fix, and the bullshit PC crap that is currently being tried does NOT appear to be working.

Good form, though. I’m going to sleep.

122

lothario1132 wrote:

  1. “The issue I was trying to draw attention to was the violence in the black community. I think THERE’S SOMETHNG WRONG. vI don’t pretend to know if it’s genetics, economics, geography, culture, history, or some other factor.”

Now evidently you can’t make up your mind. You started out so sure about black people, and now it could be all kinds of things.

LOTHARIO . . . here’s what I said in the opening post of this thread:

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

I recently started a thread stating my conclusion that blacks were more violent than whites and that this helped explain the violence in New Orleans.

I don’t believe that there’s a violence “gene” or that any single black individual is more violent than any other person. I’m talking about “social groups” . . . large sample populations. I’m saying that if you take a large black community and a large white community and compare them, you will find that the black community is more violent.

Naturally, I got called a bigot, a racist and every name you can think of for daring to suggest that skin color had anything to do with the problem. White liberals rose up in droves to condemn me.

Of course, these same people know that blacks dominate most professional sports. They should know that blacks require 20-30 times the amount of ultra-violet light to generate the same amount of Vitamin D in their body. They should know that serum testosterone levels are much higher in black males . . . which explains why blacks have a higher incidence of prostate cancer. They should know that older black women in the United States suffer fewer hip and neck fractures than their white counterparts, probably because blacks tend to have stronger bones to start with. They should know that that endemic malaria in West Africa resulted in genetic selection for blood abnormalities that protect against malaria but can have dangerous side effects. Only blacks, therefore, get sickle cell disease. It likewise appears that cancers behave differently, and more dangerously, in blacks than in whites for reasons that also appear to be genetic. And finally, they should know that not only are black IQs often lower when compared to whites and other races but: ?When blacks and whites are matched for IQ, blacks still commit crimes at two-and-a-half times the white rate. This shows that blacks must have some other characteristic, besides low intelligence, that explains their high levels of criminality.? Read the rest of the article, here: http://www.amren.com/...sue.html#cover

In other words, there are significant differences among the races and researchers are more and more reaching the conclusion that RACIAL DIFFERENCES MATTER.

But it is admittedly difficult to separate race from economics and history.

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.

. . .

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.

So I get it . . . socio-economics and history plays a huge part. I get that. BUT THERE’S SOMETHING ELSE GOING ON in the black community.

And SKIN COLOR IS A FACTOR because skin color also does one very important thing:

It determines culture.

Popular black culture in America today is like a cancer in the body or a self-destruct virus in a computer. There are values in the black community that lead to self-destructiveness. What are these self-destructive values? Well, I think some of them are :

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

I think I was pretty clear . . . I don’t know WHY there’s a problem. I am open to the posibility that genetics plays a role simply because we keep finding out that genes play a bigger difference than we thought we did.

But, I’m not into eugenics. I am also open to the possibility that other factors play a role too.

I also believe that race determines culture in most cases. There are exceptions, like a black kid who’s adopted into a white home. But generally, your race implies a culture.

I think I said that pretty clearly above.

123

[quote]JJJJ wrote:
No, what Mr. Assmonkey is saying is that . . . well fuck, why repeat myself. Please go back to my first post on this thread. Basically, in one sentence . . . we have to help the black community by developing good, old-fashioned capitalistic entrepreneurship . . . while at the same time getting rid of the white liberal pussies and black pirates who now make money and careers off black misery.[/quote]

assmonkey: I agree with this above statement you made. I am not exactly a bleeding heart liberal, although in this thread it has appeared that I am.

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he eats for a lifetime.

However, although you are possessed of some sense, it does not excuse your out-of-line behavior in this thread and the other one. Blacks are more violent than whites? For God’s sake, what kind of dickish thing is that to say? I mean, that’s not even funny to kid around about.

There is a damn good reason why we should be very careful in discussions of race. You did everything short of dropping the “N-bomb” in this thread. You say that you have experienced racism firsthand during your childhood. Did you like it? When you promote the subjective judging of someone based on their race, you are drawing more lines between our people that do NOT need to be there.

Yes, I said “our people”. Like it or not, we are all here in this thing together. Celebrate our differences, laugh at them if it’s in good fun and you’re not hurting anybody… but please do not use them to point fingers that do not belong.

Imagine you’re a black man reading your posts. Go back and read what you wrote. It was callous, insensitive, and WRONG. Wrong, wrong, wrong. I mean, I’m all about heckling people in good fun, but you gotta have just an ounce of respect here. This is the worst natural disaster we’ve had in since I don’t know when, and then you start TWO threads basically saying “well, blacks are violent, that’s why NO turned into a shithole… what did you expect?”

Are you THAT much of a jerk? I don’t know. Some people are.

124

[quote]ChrisPowers wrote:
Honestly, I think you should reread much of what he wrote. I’ve seen that accusation FLY, but I don’t recall reading anything that suggests he thinks their “blackness” makes them criminals.
[/quote]

Just a little something for you to chew on when you wake up tomorrow:

[quote]assmonkey wrote:
I recently started a thread stating my conclusion that blacks were more violent than whites and that this helped explain the violence in New Orleans.[/quote]

What part of this above quote isn’t racist? That was the very first sentence in this thread. It directly says “blacks are more violent”. There’s no way to take that out of context, man. We don’t have blinders on, we’re reading this shizzle word for word.

Did you see my earlier post to the guys who think that assmonkey has a point? Why would you ever need to say something like “blacks are more X”? What would that prove? What point could you hope to have in a conversation that would make any sense or serve any purpose? Why would you ever need to make a subjective judgement about a perceived racial difference? It’s like dividing by zero… it doesn’t accomplish anything.

125

[quote]JJJJ wrote:
WMD wrote:
Apparently you failed statistics in college. Statistics “prove” nothing. They can be used to indicate things, but they provide nothing like proof. Statistics are also easy to manipulate to support any point you want to make. Researchers do it all the time. It’s called cherry-picking.

WMD . . . what are you going to do next, pull fuzzballs out of your ass?

Let me write you a logical syllogism that shows how statistics can be used to provide TRUTH and VALIDITY in a logical argument:

  • MAJOR PREMISE: Any minority population that accounts for a disproportionately large number of murders in our society is VIOLENT

  • MINOR PREMISE: The black social group comprises 13% of the population but commits 49% of the murders.

  • CONCLUSION: Therefore the black social group is violent.

The above conclusion is both TRUE and VALID. The deduction in the syllogism would be impossible without the stats included in the Minor Premise.

God help us . . . I honestly believe that some of the moral relativism fucking up our society is starting to leak into rational thought.

Stats don’t lie . . . people lie. But hopefully YOU are intelligent enough to know when someone is trying to bullshit you using fancy statistics. Liberals do it all the time. One example . . . the guys on this thread who pull out the list of lynchings to prove how horrible white people are . . . liberal statistics are usually highly inflamatory . . . and empty.

Thank you for the link. I will review it tomorrow when the market slows down.[/quote]

Boy, you just hate it when people show you for the racist troll you are, don’t you?

You are correct when you say people lie. They also manipulate stats for their own purposes. Kind of like what you are doing. Your one and only premise is that blacks are more violent than whites and you keep bringing up statistics that you think “proves” this.

Your above syllogism is valid in that your conclusion logically follows its premises. However the validity of an argument does not depend upon whether or not its premises or conclusions are true. It merely depends upon on the formal relationship between the premises and conclusion. Valid syllogisms therefore can have false premises and false conclusions. A sound argument is valid and it has true premises.

You are cherry-picking your data and thinking this somehow makes your premises true. It does not.

I am intelligent enough to know when someone is using statistics to support their bigotry as well as their bullshit. This is not just a liberal failing but a conservative one as well. It seems especially popular among racist trolls on this website.

WMD

126

For the few people with a brain that are still around, this is actually a very interesting – and more connected than might seem for many – read:

(This was, without a doubt, one of the greatest experiments in social psychology in recent times – then again, of course, the fact that I know most of the people involved in this study makes me heavily biased)

127

[quote]ChrisPowers wrote:
WMD wrote:
Apparently you failed statistics in college. Statistics “prove” nothing. They can be used to indicate things, but they provide nothing like proof. Statistics are also easy to manipulate to support any point you want to make. Researchers do it all the time. It’s called cherry-picking. Please take a look here to help you understand the various ways in which statistics can be misleading:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A1091350.

WMD

Here’s what’s wrong with trying to apply that web site to what’s been presented here: NO CONCLUSIONS HAVE BEEN DRAWN HERE AT ALL.

Who’s manipulating anything? To support WHAT POINT?

It’s people on this site misinterpreting the phrase, “blacks are more violent” to mean, “all black people are inherently violent due to some genetic inferiority” that’s causing the confusion. I have seen no one state any such thing.

You can see the statistics. Explain how YOU think they are misleading.

Do you believe that all of those statistics that were collected by the FBI and the Census Bureau are absolutely useless and mean nothing? Do you actually think that is not of any significance that violent crimes are committed by one race at a rate hundreds of times that of another? You don’t think that’s indicative of a problem?

With all due respect, you have to have your head up your ass if that’s what you think.[/quote]

JJJJ has been attempting to use statistics to support his position from the git-go. He very carefully picks and chooses (this would be manipulation, just to help your slow-witted self out) the data he presents to specifically “prove” blacks are inherently more violent than other races.

It seems you have neither read through this thread nor did you read the website I posted. I posted the website to help those with a critical reasoning faculty understand why statistics are rarely as black and white and conclusive as some folks seem to think they are.

I never said statistics are useless or meaningless. That came from you. I’m sure they have meaning, but they do not mean what JJJJ and you seem to think they mean. And heck, JJJJ is getting all kinds of use out of them, just like you are.

It seems unfair to engage in a battle of wits with someone as poorly armed as you…

WMD

128

[quote]JJJJ wrote:
Feel free to define racism as you wish. As long as it feels good . . . hey, who cares about being accurate, right?

Outside of the la-la land you occupy, here, in the real world, “racism” has a different meaning. You might want to look into it so you don’t come across like an imbecile (just a suggestion). It detracts from your argument when you stubbornly adhere to wrong definitions.

By your definition, “blacks are better at football, basketball and sprinting” is a subjective and racist statement . . . regardless of how much data one can pile up to support the conclusion.[/quote]

This is something that assmonkey said earlier, and it gave me pause, because I have been harping on this idea for like three of my posts now, and it occurred to me that there might still be people who are in the dark about this. Am I being over-sensitive or what?

Ladies and Gentlemen, I will provide one and only one example of this because it is offensive, especially here in the South. My intention is to help some folks who might be a little confused about racism, or who might have a wrong idea about just what it is.

Let’s say I’m at lunch, and my friend (who is black) chooses a particular item downstairs in the cafeteria, and I make a thoughtless comment like: “Wow, you blacks sure like your fried chicken.”

An innocent comment? It wasn’t intended as degrading, it didn’t make a value judgement about whether or not it was a good or bad thing, it just pointed out a cultural/racial difference. It’s a simple subjective comment about someone’s race… and inappropriately racist as all hell.

Why?

It is because of the fact that I chose to make that judgement in the first place. That’s it. The racism is inherent in the process of drawing the line between me and my friend and then seeing some kind of conclusion which is noteworthy.

It does not matter how many black people like fried chicken. Show me an FBI statistic about chickens and black people. You will still be making a racist and inappropriate remark.

There, hope that helps.

129

WMD wrote:
////////////
JJJJ has been attempting to use statistics to support his position from the git-go. He very carefully picks and chooses (this would be manipulation, just to help your slow-witted self out) the data he presents to specifically “prove” blacks are inherently more violent than other races.
/////////////////////

WMD . . . put up or shut up.

If you feel like I am being selective in my data then there are two things that you are “required” to do.

By required I mean there’s a price you need to pay to heckle me and devalue my ideas.

The first is, come up with YOUR interpretation of the data I provided. It’s not like I chose hard to find and very technical metrics . . . I looked at POPULATION . . . PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION . . . CONVICTIONS FOR MURDER . . . PERCENTAGE OF PRISONERS . . . POPULATION MAKEUP OF METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA . . . MEDIAN INCOME . . . I mean, these are all very cut-and-dried stats right out of an unimpeachable source . . . your Federal government. So YOU take the same numbers and show where I went wrong in my reasoning.

The second thing you need to do then, is post your theory about what’s happening in New Orleans and explain why IT ISN’T HAPPENING in other communities that have the same population density and median income.

Now, I think my theory that blacks are more violent uses irrefutable evidence to provide a very logical explanation for what’s happening in NO and why it isn’t happening elsewhere.

My challenge to you is to do the same . . . or shut up and accept my argument as TRUE (and yes, logically valid.)

Put up or shut up.

130

lothario1132 wrote:
It is because of the fact that I chose to make that judgement in the first place. That’s it. The racism is inherent in the process of drawing the line between me and my friend and then seeing some kind of conclusion which is noteworthy.

It does not matter how many black people like fried chicken. Show me an FBI statistic about chickens and black people. You will still be making a racist and inappropriate remark.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN . . . I rest my case. There you have it:

Thought crime.

That’s what I really did “wrong” in bringing up this subject . . . I committed thought crime.

As George Orwell predicted 80 years ago, “thinking” alone will someday be sufficient to make you a criminal.

Well, at least this creep is honest and has placed his cards on the table.

This is precisely why universities today are no longer havens for free thought and unpopular ideas.

New ideas? Unpopular ideas? Oh no you don’t. Not here buddy. Here we only think clean thoughts, pure thoughts, decent thoughts, the thoughts that WE decide are appropriate.

Ahh, what the hell, who needs Free Speech, right? Aren’t there like 12 or 15 items in our Bill Of Rights? Fuck it, we can lose one or two and still have plenty.

And FACTS . . . shit, who needs those? It’s FEELINGS and EMOTION that matter. How it makes you feel is much more important than any silly objective standard.

BIOLOGY . . . fuck it. Never mind that group identification and behavior categorization are intrinsic in human beings. We can’t HELP making distinctions between “them” and “us” . . . it’s how we survived. But screw it. Let’s just pretend that our brains operate according to the rules WE decide. We’re advanced, liberal thinking beings now.

You probably mean well Lotahrio . . . but you are one SCARY mo-fo.

131

Stats are only as useful if the information is accurate. For example, when a group is labeled blacks or hispanics, this information isn’t very useful because it implies some type of commonality amongst members of the group.

With the group called hispanics, puerto ricans, dominicans and other groups that don’t have the same culture are all lumped into one big “pot” for convenience.

Even though these groups are not the same culturally, they are now all classified as hispanics. So from the get go, this data is inaccurate.

As far as blacks, the same thing can be said, there are urban blacks, rural blacks, west indians, etc… Blacks are different, it might be convenient to just call them all blacks, but this is inaccurate.

The same goes for whites, there are so many different types of white people, to just call them all whites is inaccurate. So from the start the labels are not specific enough.

Without specificity, you will get garbage results, garbage in, garbage out.

Also ghettos across the world regardless of color tend to have more crime, russia and poland have a lot of crime in their ghettos.

132

[quote]WMD wrote:
JJJJ has been attempting to use statistics to support his position from the git-go. He very carefully picks and chooses (this would be manipulation, just to help your slow-witted self out) the data he presents to specifically “prove” blacks are inherently more violent than other races.[/quote]

Brother, you’ve got it backwards if you think that he and I have been cherry-picking data. What’s funny is the exact opposite is true. His contention that blacks commit a disproportionately high amount of violent crime turned out to be accurate. That fact ALONE proves that blacks in America are more violent than whites, whether you can bring your PC self to admit it or not.

Someone tried to “call him out” by CHERRY-PICKING data that suggested otherwise, by actually copying and pasting select sentences out of a paragraph to prove their point, while deliberately omitting other pertinent data. I know because I saw that very paragraph myself when I was researching to see who was correct. Here’s the conversation as it appeared in this thread:

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.

[quote]It seems you have neither read through this thread nor did you read the website I posted. I posted the website to help those with a critical reasoning faculty understand why statistics are rarely as black and white and conclusive as some folks seem to think they are.
I never said statistics are useless or meaningless. That came from you. I’m sure they have meaning, but they do not mean what JJJJ and you seem to think they mean. And heck, JJJJ is getting all kinds of use out of them, just like you are.[/quote]

I went to the site you posted, which is why I responded the way I did. Misinterpretation of statistics can only be applied if someone is attempting to INTERPRET the statistics. Saying that blacks in America are more violent than whites is not an INTERPRETATION of the statistics, it IS the statistic. Furthermore, it isn’t racist in the least to admit a fact.

[quote]It seems unfair to engage in a battle of wits with someone as poorly armed as you…
WMD[/quote]

Wow, that’s scathing. Oh how I long to be as articulate and witty as you are.

Really, is that the best you’ve got? To attack me personally? If I’m as “slow-witted” as you say, then why have I not resorted to personal attacks, while you and others have?

133

Statistics -some guidelines

Where did the data come from? Who ran the survey? Do they have an ulterior motive for having the result go one way?

Be aware of numbers taken out of context. This is called ‘cherry-picking’, an instance in which the analysis only concentrates on such data that supports a foregone conclusion and ignores everything else.

Be wary of comparisons. Two things happening at the same time are not necessarily related, though statistics can be used to show that they are. This trick is used a lot by politicians wanting to show that a new policy is working.

134

[quote]ChrisPowers wrote:

I went to the site you posted, which is why I responded the way I did. Misinterpretation of statistics can only be applied if someone is attempting to INTERPRET the statistics. Saying that blacks in America are more violent than whites is not an INTERPRETATION of the statistics, it IS the statistic. Furthermore, it isn’t racist in the least to admit a fact.

[/quote]

This is the point I think is wrong.

If black people appear more often in crime statistics, that only proves that they appear more often in crime statistics.

That is all that it “proves”.

You might even come up with the theory that american black people appear more often in crime statistics because they commit more crimes, which is not entirely unreasonable, but now you have entered the realm of speculation.

You have started to interpret allready and you are still a long distance away from “blacks are more violent”.

Also, “violent behaviour” and being inherently “violent” is not the same, even though they seem to be in your head. If I put one and the same individual in different social settings it?s inherent agression won?t change, but the expression of that agression will change dramatically.

135

BASEMENTD

I have no problem with any of your guidelines or general analysis.

The source of data here is the FBI Criminal stats which are widely accepted as accurate.

Specific numbers used are based on categories and metrics used by the government census or FBI. Even if you think these are inaccurate (say, for example, you think the Census under-counted blacks) you have to assume that the error is inherent in all the numbers. Therefore, if the methodology caused you to undercount blacks, it probably caused you to undercount Asians and whites.

Your point about differences in black populations is excellent and if this were an academic study I would have to address it. However, I suspect that the numbers of non-American blacks are insignificant.

Likewise, I’d have to address your urban vs. rural arguments. This is even easier. The US population is evenly distributed between urban and suburban . . . with only 10% living in rural areas.

136

is it fixed yet? if not, just PM when done. thanks! you guys are the GREATEST!

Bastard

137

[quote]ChrisPowers wrote:
WMD wrote:
JJJJ has been attempting to use statistics to support his position from the git-go. He very carefully picks and chooses (this would be manipulation, just to help your slow-witted self out) the data he presents to specifically “prove” blacks are inherently more violent than other races.

Brother, you’ve got it backwards if you think that he and I have been cherry-picking data. What’s funny is the exact opposite is true. His contention that blacks commit a disproportionately high amount of violent crime turned out to be accurate. That fact ALONE proves that blacks in America are more violent than whites, whether you can bring your PC self to admit it or not.

Someone tried to “call him out” by CHERRY-PICKING data that suggested otherwise, by actually copying and pasting select sentences out of a paragraph to prove their point, while deliberately omitting other pertinent data. I know because I saw that very paragraph myself when I was researching to see who was correct. Here’s the conversation as it appeared in this thread:

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.

It seems you have neither read through this thread nor did you read the website I posted. I posted the website to help those with a critical reasoning faculty understand why statistics are rarely as black and white and conclusive as some folks seem to think they are.
I never said statistics are useless or meaningless. That came from you. I’m sure they have meaning, but they do not mean what JJJJ and you seem to think they mean. And heck, JJJJ is getting all kinds of use out of them, just like you are.

I went to the site you posted, which is why I responded the way I did. Misinterpretation of statistics can only be applied if someone is attempting to INTERPRET the statistics. Saying that blacks in America are more violent than whites is not an INTERPRETATION of the statistics, it IS the statistic. Furthermore, it isn’t racist in the least to admit a fact.

It seems unfair to engage in a battle of wits with someone as poorly armed as you…
WMD

Wow, that’s scatching. Oh how I long to be as articulate and witty as you are.

Really, is that the best you’ve got? To attack me personally? If I’m as “slow-witted” as you say, then why have I not resorted to personal attacks, while you and others have?[/quote]

And of course we all know that the police and our Judicial systems are color blind. So, since mostly black people are arrested and convicted then they must be more violent and prone to crime.
PLEASE give me a break!

138

ORION . . . while I think your points are reasonable, I also think you’re being overly pedantic.

This reminds me of:

“Waaal shucks . . . it depends what the definition of is, is.”

It’s not that I think this subject can be taken lightly or that it doesn’t demand rigor, but you’re questioning assumptions about data that has long been accepted and validated.

Say I’m standing outside and a glob of shit hits me in the head. You’re right, all I can conclude is that a glob of shit hit me in the head. Now, the scientist would look up in the sky and look around to gather more evidence. But the smart man mutters “fucking birds” and ducks under a tree.

Why?

Because experience and learning have taught us that globs of shit flying through the air usually come from birds.

Likewise, to say that being in prison and having committed the crime are not the same thing may be technically correct in the laboratory or classroom, but it is not accurate given what we know about the justice system.

Sure . . . the fact that a black man is in prison DOES NOT BY ITSELF prove that he committed any crime . . . but the overwhelmngly high probability is that he did . . . and we can assume that overwhelmingly high probability is distributed equally for all inmates. So (for example) if our experience has shown us that 97% of all convicts actually did what they’re in prison for, and we see that 10,000 blacks are in prison for murder, we can reasonably assume that 9700 of them did murder.

This is where I want to introduce the idea of deductive reasoning . . . the ability to derive conclusions from premises.

This isn’t a case of me just looking at stats and saying “I think they mean this” (interpretation).

My conclusion is based on the premise that a “violent minority” can be defined as one that’s responsible for an overwhelming amount of crime. As long as you accept that premise, then my conclusion is true.

Obviously, it all hinges on that definition of what conctitutes a “violent minority.” You’re welcome to define a “violent minority” any way you like . . . and no one can say that you’re wrong.

So is it reasonable to conclude that blacks as a social group are more violent?

I’d say 80% of the people here have disagreed with me . . . yet NOT ONE has offered an alternative explanation for the data that also adequately explained why its OPPOSITE was not true.

For example . . . the famous “blacks are living in poverty” rationale does not explain why other people living in poverty engage in less crime.

139

DR. J wrote:

And of course we all know that the police and our Judicial systems are color blind. So, since mostly black people are arrested and convicted then they must be more violent and prone to crime. PLEASE give me a break!

RESPONSE: Excellent point . . . unfortunately, just saying it doesn’t make it true.

You have to come up with some credible evidence that shows our national crime statistics are wrong . . . and by how much they’re wrong.

140

I’m treading very lightly into this thread for one purpose only, and that is to ask why people are arguing about statistics that are only showing correlation, and not causation?

I really don’t think it’s an arguable point that blacks are convicted of more, and of more violent, crimes than would be reflected by their percentage of the population.

However, that doesn’t tell you that such a statistic is caused by race any more than it tells you that it’s caused by racism. You have to dig deeper if you want to find out what causes the disparity. Is racism a cause? Maybe. Is poverty? Maybe? Is culture? Maybe? Some interplay of all the above plus more? Maybe. You can’t tell just from the correlation. At the very least, one would need to run a multi-variate regression analysis with all the factors you could think of to try to find what the likely causes of the numbers are.