[quote]PonyWhisperer wrote:
you have decided to change your argument by using black murder rates compared with overall population numbers to paint a picture of black (on black) violence as an epidemic, is that about right?[/quote]
You aren’t suggesting otherwise are you?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]polo77j wrote:
To me, those numbers raise a lot more questions than they answer.[/quote]
Like what?[/quote]
For instance, what % of the 12% black population have murdered. Where, exactly, are the highest concentration of murders? By whom? When (time of day/year)? Age groups predominantly responsible for these murders? Social group affiliation (gangs, religious, etc)? Socioeconomic status/upbringing? Same questions for the other side of the debate. How do they relate to the overall population’s statistics regarding homicide? i.e. control for the other variables that can be quantified.
See exactly what is disproportionate (if anything) and where. These things tend to tell a more complete story than just “12% of the population is causing mayhem” or whatever. Framing the question that way tends to lead to biases when trying to figure this type of shit out.
I’d also like to see if there are any other relationships with other variables that we may not have thought of.
[quote]PonyWhisperer wrote:
ZEB,
So your defense is that you posted stats and did not understand them?[/quote]
I need no defense. Actually, I don’t think that you understood them. It is rather obvious that about 12% of the population is creating more crime (percentage wise) than the rest of the population. But keep in mind a question can also be used to provoke someone to think for themselves.
Don’t need white Knights nor do I want to reframe my question. What you should have done was read it as a question and then answer it. You somehow missed the question mark and that can happen to anyone don’t feel bad.
The stats do support my position which is the black population is involved in more criminal activity (percentage wise) than the white population. Pretty simple… and quite true. And I wanted to know what you (or anyone for that matter) thought about that particular question. That’s why I phrased it as a question. Stop being argumentative it doesn’t help your case.
Black on white violence is epidemic. I don’t need any help from anyone to prove that point the statistics have done that for me. The fact that others agree simply means that they (apparently unlike you) understand how to read the statistics.
Here is something else for you to ponder if you wish.
I’m sure it has either gone up or down by a point or two over the past few years but I cannot quickly locate 2014 stats but 2008 will do nicely:
“As of June 30, 2008, there are 846,000 black male inmates held in state or federal prisons or local jails in the United States. This represents 40.2% of all inmates for the same year. This data is based on the Prison Inmates at Midyear 2008 Statistical Tables of the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. About 65% of black inmates are aged 20-39.”
Tell me your thoughts on the above. What does this demonstrate to you?
(That last sentence was a question note the question mark 
[quote]PonyWhisperer wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]PonyWhisperer wrote:
[quote]Ajax19 wrote:
PonyWhisperer,
According to the very easy to read chart�??�?�¢?�??�?�¦
Black on white murders numbered 431, while white on black murders numbered 193… 431/193=2.233 Meaning there were more than twice as many black on white murders as there were white on black murders.
Secondly, there were a total of 1,804 + 1,045+26 = 2,875 white murderers in 2012, compared with 2,257 + 622+17 = 2,896 black murderers in 2012. Meaning more than half of all murders in 2012 were committed by the black population.
Lastly, and perhaps most relevant, the black population in the U.S. is just 12.5 percent of total.
My math isn�??�?�¢??t great either�??�?�¢?�??�?�¦but I�??�?�¢??m guessing that this was the point�??�?�¢?�??�?�¦
So�??�?�¢?�??�?�¦�??�?�¢?�??�?�¦[/quote]
Well that is a nice way of looking at it, but Zeb said that there is more black on white crime than white on white crime, meaning that he cannot even understand the stats he is posting. [/quote]
Actually Einstein I originally posed it as a question. I thought you’d be able to understand that about 12% of the population is awfully busy wreaking havoc.
[/quote]
ZEB,
So your defense is that you posted stats and did not understand them? Luckily you have a group of white knights coming to your defense and helping you re-frame your original post. The fact is that you thought the stats supported your view of the world and clearly they don’t, so now, with the help of a few like minded individuals you have decided to change your argument by using black murder rates compared with overall population numbers to paint a picture of black (on black) violence as an epidemic, is that about right?[/quote]
I’m not sure what “world view” you’re referring to, but this data makes it clear that all other factors being equal black people are more dangerous than white people.
It’s a rational assessment of risk to be apprehensive of a black man more so than a white man even if you are white. Of course it’s also rational to assess their economic affluence via their appearance(since criminality is very highly correlated with negative economic outcomes) is the next layer of that evaluation.
So a black man in casual atire is more likely to be dangerous than a white man in like casual atire, but a black man in a 3 piece suit is also less likely to be dangerous than a white man with baggy pants and an otherwise disheveled or impoverished attire.
This is because criminality is a better predictor of economic affluence than race is a predictor of criminality.
There’s nothing inherently racist about that kind of assessment, but white people are constantly being told that these kinds of rational assessments are racist and evil none-the-less.
Not to get too far away from the original posters point:
"http://www.nydailynews.com/...ticle-1.2183202
Anybody see this? Absolutely no news coverage up until now. If the races were reversed it would be on every TV & newspaper."
When a white person is beaten or killed by a black man there is very little, if any fanfare by the left wing media over the crime. This, in my opinion gives the black community a false sense of persecution as they are only seeing, by the liberal media one side of the story. The same goes for black on black crime which is rampant. Why are they not cleaning up their own neighborhoods where crime happens on a regular basis?
I honestly think that most blacks who we see marching in the streets do so because they perceive some sort of persecution and are not aware of the actual facts.
Is this because of a left wing out of control media, or is it because Obama has stroked the racism fires with his inane comments when he doesn’t even yet understand the facts, or is it because of both? (note the question mark which means I am asking you, or someone to respond with their thoughts)
Thank you for your time
ZEB
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
[u]This is because criminality is a better predictor of economic affluence[/u] than race is a predictor of criminality.
There’s nothing inherently racist about that kind of assessment, but white people are constantly being told that these kinds of rational assessments are racist and evil none-the-less.
[/quote]
I tend to agree but think the quote I highlighted as being the other way. I see it as you just put the cart before the horse - unless you have some info I missed? I.e. economic affluence is a better predictor of criminality … The way you posited it says to me that the person is a criminal first and at a lower socioeconomic standing because of their criminality, rather than the other way around.
[quote]polo77j wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]polo77j wrote:
To me, those numbers raise a lot more questions than they answer.[/quote]
Like what?[/quote]
For instance, what % of the 12% black population have murdered. Where, exactly, are the highest concentration of murders? By whom? When (time of day/year)? Age groups predominantly responsible for these murders? Social group affiliation (gangs, religious, etc)? Socioeconomic status/upbringing? Same questions for the other side of the debate. How do they relate to the overall population’s statistics regarding homicide? i.e. control for the other variables that can be quantified.
See exactly what is disproportionate (if anything) and where. These things tend to tell a more complete story than just “12% of the population is causing mayhem” or whatever. Framing the question that way tends to lead to biases when trying to figure this type of shit out.
I’d also like to see if there are any other relationships with other variables that we may not have thought of.[/quote]
Overall violent crime is a vast minority of any racial demographic(and is actually going down in recent years), but the difference between blacks and whites is like the difference between Belgium and South Africa. It’s completely divergent.
Overall rate for murders is 4.5 per 100,000 population in 2013.
The highest concentration of murders is predictably where the largest urban black populations are. Chicago, Detroit, DC, etc…
Highest concentrations are among black men 18-24.
Having said all of this, race is actually NOT the best predictor of violent crime.
The best predictor far and away for violent crime is SINGLE MOTHER HOUSEHOLDS which make up over 70% of black households.
If you factor out the household you were raised in, all other factors including race, socioeconomic status, religion, etc… all effectively go to zero.
Why is this? Because single mothers in the west beat the shit out of, neglect, and malnourish their kids at a rate only seen in the third world.
Why are their sooo many fatherless households?
Because women are subsidized to have kids through the welfare and myriad of state subsidies with zero downside risk.
[quote]polo77j wrote:
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
[u]This is because criminality is a better predictor of economic affluence[/u] than race is a predictor of criminality.
There’s nothing inherently racist about that kind of assessment, but white people are constantly being told that these kinds of rational assessments are racist and evil none-the-less.
[/quote]
I tend to agree but think the quote I highlighted as being the other way. I see it as you just put the cart before the horse - unless you have some info I missed? I.e. economic affluence is a better predictor of criminality … The way you posited it says to me that the person is a criminal first and at a lower socioeconomic standing because of their criminality, rather than the other way around.[/quote]
That is exactly right. The historical crime rates among heavily impoverished populations in America before the welfare state(i.e. European immigrants) were low and crime rates in poor populations outside the United States have much lower crime rates.
The best assessment though, is that both criminality and economic incompetence are the result of VIOLENT upbringing, specifically the abuse of single mother households(and to a lesser extent single mothers with boyfriends).
Basically the welfare state pushing out fathers(largely black fathers because of the historical position of black families below the “welfare gap”) is societal poison.
Short answer: The person is abused first destroying their ability to negotiate nonviolently(criminality) which subsequently destroys their ability to be competent and productive(economic affluence).
Which brings me to my next question -
So single-parent households (specifically single-mother households?) yield a higher percentage of criminals? What percentage? Would you then control for single-mother households collecting welfare and see the proportion of criminals (are we specifically talking about murderers still or has the conversation moved towards criminality?) produced from these conditions compared to the population stats?
TooHuman: You mentioned poor populations outside of the US and their crime rates - as we both know crime rates only consider crimes reported and recorded. I’ve been through Dahravi in Mumbai (you want to talk about poverty - holy shit) and, from what I’ve read and been told about it (by inhabitants) they largely police themselves and most of their crimes go largely unreported/unrecorded, plus there’s inherent cultural and legal differences which make it difficult to really compare those numbers.
[quote]polo77j wrote:
So single-parent households [/quote]
Reduction in this ^ = reduction in crime. It’s amazingly simple, but nobody is willing to address this in poor communities. It’s easier to blame “racist cops”, “racist economy”, “racist education system”… If you can not financially support yourself, you have no business getting pregnant. Birth control is not rocket science, or expensive, or racist, or anything other than simple common sense.
[quote]polo77j wrote:
Which brings me to my next question -
So single-parent households (specifically single-mother households?) yield a higher percentage of criminals? What percentage? Would you then control for single-mother households collecting welfare and see the proportion of criminals (are we specifically talking about murderers still or has the conversation moved towards criminality?) produced from these conditions compared to the population stats?
TooHuman: You mentioned poor populations outside of the US and their crime rates - as we both know crime rates only consider crimes reported and recorded. I’ve been through Dahravi in Mumbai (you want to talk about poverty - holy shit) and, from what I’ve read and been told about it (by inhabitants) they largely police themselves and most of their crimes go largely unreported/unrecorded, plus there’s inherent cultural and legal differences which make it difficult to really compare those numbers.[/quote]
These are all good and relevant question: Your best source for answers in detail as well as the supporting evidence is here:
and here…
[quote]Aggv wrote:
[quote]polo77j wrote:
So single-parent households [/quote]
Reduction in this ^ = reduction in crime. It’s amazingly simple, but nobody is willing to address this in poor communities. It’s easier to blame “racist cops”, “racist economy”, “racist education system”… If you can not financially support yourself, you have no business getting pregnant. Birth control is not rocket science, or expensive, or racist, or anything other than simple common sense. [/quote]
So, let’s talk about the high percentage of low socioeconomic women (one can extrapolate that to black inner city women) and abortions. I’m curious about their future development, i.e. what proportion of those getting abortions early in life (coming from low socioeconomic areas/upbringings) improve their human capital, move into the middle class and lead happy successful lives? (i.e. economic mobility).
Also, WHY is there such a high proportion compared to the overall population?
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
[quote]polo77j wrote:
Which brings me to my next question -
So single-parent households (specifically single-mother households?) yield a higher percentage of criminals? What percentage? Would you then control for single-mother households collecting welfare and see the proportion of criminals (are we specifically talking about murderers still or has the conversation moved towards criminality?) produced from these conditions compared to the population stats?
TooHuman: You mentioned poor populations outside of the US and their crime rates - as we both know crime rates only consider crimes reported and recorded. I’ve been through Dahravi in Mumbai (you want to talk about poverty - holy shit) and, from what I’ve read and been told about it (by inhabitants) they largely police themselves and most of their crimes go largely unreported/unrecorded, plus there’s inherent cultural and legal differences which make it difficult to really compare those numbers.[/quote]
These are all good and relevant question: Your best source for answers in detail as well as the supporting evidence is here:
and here…
[/quote]
Thanks bud … I’d like to dick around with the numbers too but I’ll do my own digging into that realm
EDIT: p.s. judging by the title on the videos (I’ll watch them … just an observation) I wonder how he came to these conclusions (did he look at data unbiased or does he suffer from confirmation bias?)
[quote]Aggv wrote:
[quote]polo77j wrote:
So single-parent households [/quote]
Reduction in this ^ = reduction in crime. It’s amazingly simple, but nobody is willing to address this in poor communities. It’s easier to blame “racist cops”, “racist economy”, “racist education system”… If you can not financially support yourself, you have no business getting pregnant. Birth control is not rocket science, or expensive, or racist, or anything other than simple common sense. [/quote]
If you take a look at the existence and explanation of the “welfare cliff” you’ll see that the argument for blacks being trapped in welfare by the current economic system is actually pretty irrefutable.
It’s incredibly tragic and I don’t know that there’s anything anyone can do about it until the whole fiat system collapses and black families can start to rebuild.
[quote]polo77j wrote:
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
[quote]polo77j wrote:
Which brings me to my next question -
So single-parent households (specifically single-mother households?) yield a higher percentage of criminals? What percentage? Would you then control for single-mother households collecting welfare and see the proportion of criminals (are we specifically talking about murderers still or has the conversation moved towards criminality?) produced from these conditions compared to the population stats?
TooHuman: You mentioned poor populations outside of the US and their crime rates - as we both know crime rates only consider crimes reported and recorded. I’ve been through Dahravi in Mumbai (you want to talk about poverty - holy shit) and, from what I’ve read and been told about it (by inhabitants) they largely police themselves and most of their crimes go largely unreported/unrecorded, plus there’s inherent cultural and legal differences which make it difficult to really compare those numbers.[/quote]
These are all good and relevant question: Your best source for answers in detail as well as the supporting evidence is here:
and here…
[/quote]
Thanks bud … I’d like to dick around with the numbers too but I’ll do my own digging into that realm[/quote]
“Dick around with the numbers?” What are you talking about? All the sources are in the description of the videos. Are you saying you’re going to go and do hundreds of hours of research to reproduce the scope of data in these videos?
If you’re not willing to do at least a few hours worth of watching the video and verifying the sources, you’re never going to get anywhere near actually answering any of the questions you asked.
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
[quote]polo77j wrote:
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
[quote]polo77j wrote:
Which brings me to my next question -
So single-parent households (specifically single-mother households?) yield a higher percentage of criminals? What percentage? Would you then control for single-mother households collecting welfare and see the proportion of criminals (are we specifically talking about murderers still or has the conversation moved towards criminality?) produced from these conditions compared to the population stats?
TooHuman: You mentioned poor populations outside of the US and their crime rates - as we both know crime rates only consider crimes reported and recorded. I’ve been through Dahravi in Mumbai (you want to talk about poverty - holy shit) and, from what I’ve read and been told about it (by inhabitants) they largely police themselves and most of their crimes go largely unreported/unrecorded, plus there’s inherent cultural and legal differences which make it difficult to really compare those numbers.[/quote]
These are all good and relevant question: Your best source for answers in detail as well as the supporting evidence is here:
and here…
[/quote]
Thanks bud … I’d like to dick around with the numbers too but I’ll do my own digging into that realm[/quote]
“Dick around with the numbers?” What are you talking about? All the sources are in the description of the videos. Are you saying you’re going to go and do hundreds of hours of research to reproduce the scope of data in these videos?
If you’re not willing to do at least a few hours worth of watching the video and verifying the sources, you’re never going to get anywhere near actually answering any of the questions you asked.[/quote]
A bit touchy? See my edit man. If you’re not willing to objectively question the info in ANYTHING you watch then you’re losing the battle. I’m not making any value judgement on any of the info you’ve posted regarding any of the questions I’ve asked - you’ve been more than forth right and I appreciate it. I haven’t watched the videos yet (said I will) and if I have questions regarding sources, presentation or content I’ll seek out the answers is all I meant…
[quote]polo77j wrote:
[quote]Aggv wrote:
[quote]polo77j wrote:
So single-parent households [/quote]
Reduction in this ^ = reduction in crime. It’s amazingly simple, but nobody is willing to address this in poor communities. It’s easier to blame “racist cops”, “racist economy”, “racist education system”… If you can not financially support yourself, you have no business getting pregnant. Birth control is not rocket science, or expensive, or racist, or anything other than simple common sense. [/quote]
So, let’s talk about the high percentage of low socioeconomic women (one can extrapolate that to black inner city women) and abortions. I’m curious about their future development, i.e. what proportion of those getting abortions early in life (coming from low socioeconomic areas/upbringings) improve their human capital, move into the middle class and lead happy successful lives? (i.e. economic mobility).
Also, WHY is there such a high proportion compared to the overall population?[/quote]
Never mentioned abortions…
but abortions are not needed if you never get pregnant in the first place. There is nobody forcing anyone to get pregnant.
[quote]Aggv wrote:
[quote]polo77j wrote:
[quote]Aggv wrote:
[quote]polo77j wrote:
So single-parent households [/quote]
Reduction in this ^ = reduction in crime. It’s amazingly simple, but nobody is willing to address this in poor communities. It’s easier to blame “racist cops”, “racist economy”, “racist education system”… If you can not financially support yourself, you have no business getting pregnant. Birth control is not rocket science, or expensive, or racist, or anything other than simple common sense. [/quote]
So, let’s talk about the high percentage of low socioeconomic women (one can extrapolate that to black inner city women) and abortions. I’m curious about their future development, i.e. what proportion of those getting abortions early in life (coming from low socioeconomic areas/upbringings) improve their human capital, move into the middle class and lead happy successful lives? (i.e. economic mobility).
Also, WHY is there such a high proportion compared to the overall population?[/quote]
Never mentioned abortions…
but abortions are not needed if you never get pregnant in the first place. There is nobody forcing anyone to get pregnant. [/quote]
ya know what … let’s stay away from this topic for this thread … I can see it going down a road no one intended
[quote]polo77j wrote:
[quote]Aggv wrote:
[quote]polo77j wrote:
[quote]Aggv wrote:
[quote]polo77j wrote:
So single-parent households [/quote]
Reduction in this ^ = reduction in crime. It’s amazingly simple, but nobody is willing to address this in poor communities. It’s easier to blame “racist cops”, “racist economy”, “racist education system”… If you can not financially support yourself, you have no business getting pregnant. Birth control is not rocket science, or expensive, or racist, or anything other than simple common sense. [/quote]
So, let’s talk about the high percentage of low socioeconomic women (one can extrapolate that to black inner city women) and abortions. I’m curious about their future development, i.e. what proportion of those getting abortions early in life (coming from low socioeconomic areas/upbringings) improve their human capital, move into the middle class and lead happy successful lives? (i.e. economic mobility).
Also, WHY is there such a high proportion compared to the overall population?[/quote]
Never mentioned abortions…
but abortions are not needed if you never get pregnant in the first place. There is nobody forcing anyone to get pregnant. [/quote]
ya know what … let’s stay away from this topic for this thread … I can see it going down a road no one intended[/quote]
I’m not discussing abortions, I’m not discussing abortions, im making the point that it’s common sense to not let some dude raw dog you if you’re not financially stable.
This women had 6 children. Why? Common sense would say after the first one, you should maybe stop letting guys finish inside. Instead her kids are participating in riots.
[quote]Aggv wrote:
[quote]polo77j wrote:
[quote]Aggv wrote:
[quote]polo77j wrote:
[quote]Aggv wrote:
[quote]polo77j wrote:
So single-parent households [/quote]
Reduction in this ^ = reduction in crime. It’s amazingly simple, but nobody is willing to address this in poor communities. It’s easier to blame “racist cops”, “racist economy”, “racist education system”… If you can not financially support yourself, you have no business getting pregnant. Birth control is not rocket science, or expensive, or racist, or anything other than simple common sense. [/quote]
So, let’s talk about the high percentage of low socioeconomic women (one can extrapolate that to black inner city women) and abortions. I’m curious about their future development, i.e. what proportion of those getting abortions early in life (coming from low socioeconomic areas/upbringings) improve their human capital, move into the middle class and lead happy successful lives? (i.e. economic mobility).
Also, WHY is there such a high proportion compared to the overall population?[/quote]
Never mentioned abortions…
but abortions are not needed if you never get pregnant in the first place. There is nobody forcing anyone to get pregnant. [/quote]
ya know what … let’s stay away from this topic for this thread … I can see it going down a road no one intended[/quote]
I’m not discussing abortions, I’m not discussing abortions, im making the point that it’s common sense to not let some dude raw dog you if you’re not financially stable.
This women had 6 children. Why? Common sense would say after the first one, you should maybe stop letting guys finish inside. Instead her kids are participating in riots.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/28/us/baltimore-riot-mom-smacks-son/[/quote]
Look man, I tend to agree with you - I’m going to argue, though, that, sure, you didn’t mention abortion by name, you mentioned birth control overall - I brought up abortion due to it being a form of birth control (which it is - regardless of your stance on the subject). I didn’t want to continue talking about it due to the touchiness of the subject and it’s tendency to cause discussion to devolve into shit shows.
But, regardless of this, you’re putting a lot of assumptions regarding this subject which haven’t yet been discussed - specifically access to quality education to include an environment conducive to learning as well as emphasis and a culture which encourages self improvement. These things tend to correlate strongly with lower birth rates, better quality of life, lower crime rates, higher rates of economic mobility, etc. It’s not enough to say keep your legs closed - it MAY not be that obvious in certain environments. I understand the trends, but there’s more to it than that.
You’re right, it does seem like common damn sense, and it seems to circle back to a nuclear family with traditional values (education, independence, compassion, etc).