What is this nations fascination with fire arms?

[Accountable]

Your post kinda supports my point I made about today's youth.

 

[ccspark]

Aha, but the new generation has wikipedia.

(I'm fourteen, fyi)

 

[All Else Failed]

then you should have said that, not an inaccurate date with an accusation of it being the height of racism ever.

within the 20th century.

 

[ccspark]

within the 20th century.

I was talking about the original post stating tha the 1970's were the height of racism ever.

 

[All Else Failed]

Not for nuthin', but Malcolm X was killed by the Nation of Islam.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm told that today's youth are more enlightened than we were, but I see that's not really true. People still color-code people to either lump them all together as bad people or to use it to explain why they really aren't to blame for bad behavior.

For the love of all that may or may not be fucking holy, PLEASE try looking at a criminal and realize that he committed a crime because he decided to do what he wanted to do and damn the consequences. I know it requires more brainwork and is a bit inconvenient at times, but it really is worth the effort.

A wise man was once asked when "race" (a complete fucking fiction, btw) would cease to be such a major issue. He answered "When people stop talking about it like it's such a major issue."

Ok, however that doesn't excuse the fact that more blacks cause crime than poor whites do on average.


You can accept reality, or you can reject it.




Oh and race exists:

The Race FAQ - html

I was talking about the original post stating tha the 1970's were the height of racism ever.

No, you misread. I said that there wasn't any major black gangs with thousands of members across the country, like the bloods and crips before the 1970's.

 

[justmee]

Re: What is this nations fascination with fire arms?

i guess it has something to do with racism:dunno

 

[itsmeJonB]

how did this thread turn into racism and why am i offended?

 

[Accountable]

Ok, however that doesn't excuse the fact that more blacks cause crime than poor whites do on average.

And suppose that a study finds convicted criminals have disproportionately more cavities than law-abiding citizens. Can we then say that poor oral hygiene causes crime? Would you feel justified in posting "You can explain the violence in America with the simple observation that we have a lot of people who don't floss after meals"?
Correlation does not imply causation.

Oh and race exists:

The Race FAQ - html

You're supposed to read something to make sure it really supports your point. Have you even read this, or did you just grab the first thing Google dropped in your lap?

 

[Meirionnydd]

Oh really? Then what does it have to do with, hm?

Same economic status, same area, same everything. Different race. That is the deciding factor, whether you choose to play ignorant to keep with political correctness or not, we both know it is true.

He's not playing with political correctness, he's absolutely right, and you're dead wrong.

The whole 'race' issue is a fiction, criminality among blacks has nothing to do with 'culture', it has more to do with economic disadvantage, social disadvantage and an inequitable and discriminatory Criminal Justice system.

Ok, however that doesn't excuse the fact that more blacks cause crime than poor whites do on average.

You can accept reality, or you can reject it.

Oh and race exists:

The Race FAQ - html

There are other ways of explaining that. Actually, you cannot clearly say that poor blacks cause more crime than poor whites, rather, poor blacks get caught and convicted at higher rates than poor whites. There's a big difference there; in nearly every Western country in the world, including Australia, the UK and the United States, the Police are regulary known to over-police minority individuals and communities.

 

[All Else Failed]

And suppose that a study finds convicted criminals have disproportionately more cavities than law-abiding citizens. Can we then say that poor oral hygiene causes crime? Would you feel justified in posting "You can explain the violence in America with the simple observation that we have a lot of people who don't floss after meals"?
Correlation does not imply causation.


You're supposed to read something to make sure it really supports your point. Have you even read this, or did you just grab the first thing Google dropped in your lap?

Thats a nice, meaningless comparison, but it doesn't answer the question.

If one group of people does something more than any other group that they share similarities with, there is something making that particular group do it.



Uh, yeah, I did read it. It does support my point.

 

[Accountable]

Thats a nice, meaningless comparison, but it doesn't answer the question.

What question. You asked a question?

If one group of people does something more than any other group that they share similarities with, there is something making that particular group do it.

So you agree with my scenario about dental hygiene.

Uh, yeah, I did read it. It does support my point.

Where? Where does it indicate that one "race" is genetically predisposed to be more violent or commit more crimes than another?

 

[Accountable]

There are other ways of explaining that. Actually, you cannot clearly say that poor blacks cause more crime than poor whites, rather, poor blacks get caught and convicted at higher rates than poor whites. There's a big difference there; in nearly every Western country in the world, including Australia, the UK and the United States, the Police are regulary known to over-police minority individuals and communities.

:nod::clap

 

[All Else Failed]

What question. You asked a question?

So you agree with my scenario about dental hygiene.
Where? Where does it indicate that one "race" is genetically predisposed to be more violent or commit more crimes than another?

The question of why, statistically, blacks commit more crime and are involved more in gang violence?


No, your dental hygene scenario is stupid and doesn't even relate to the situation.



Did you even read it?

"In response to questionable interpretations of the U.S. Endangered Species Act, and to help ensure the evolutionary significance of populations deemed ‘subspecies,’ a set of criteria was outlined in the early 1990s by John C. Avise, R. Martin Ball, Jr.[10], Stephen J. O’Brien and Ernst Mayr [11] which is as follows: “members of a subspecies would share a unique, geographic locale, a set of phylogenetically concordant phenotypic characters, and a unique natural history relative to other subdivisions of the species. Although subspecies are not reproductively isolated, they will normally be allopatric and exhibit recognizable phylogenetic partitioning.” Furthermore, “evidence for phylogenetic distinction must normally come from the concordant distributions of multiple, independent genetically based traits.”[12] This is known as the phylogeographic subspecies definition, and a review of recent conservation literature will show that these principles have gained wide acceptance."




"Whether a population has had a unique natural history can be inferred from its degree of differentiation with respect to other such populations. The arbitrary division of an interbreeding, genetically unstructured group will result in subgroups that are genetically indistinguishable, whereas populations that evolve more or less independently for some length of time will accumulate genetic differences (divergent gene frequencies, private alleles, etc.) such that they “exhibit recognizable phylogenetic partitioning.”



"The majority of population genetic studies over the past decade have investigated the various regions of mitochondrial DNA, a molecule that resides in the cytoplasm outside a cell’s nucleus. mtDNA contains 37 genes and is comprised of 16,569 base pairs in humans. Because it is haploid and maternally inherited, mtDNA has an effective population size about one-quarter that of the autosomes (the non-sex chromosomes). It’s easy to collect, has a relatively high mutation rate, and in particular, its lack of recombination allows for a straightforward assessment of the relationship between haplotypes. Lack of recombination also means that all parts of the molecule are completely linked, which prevents independent evolution of mtDNA’s 37 genes and non-coding control region. For this reason, mtDNA is considered a single genetic locus for phylogenetic purposes. Humans have relatively low mitochondrial diversity compared to the other great apes, and reports of this are mostly responsible for the belief that humans have low genetic diversity. However, mtDNA makes up just a few millionths of the human genome,[17] and as a single locus, carries little statistical weight."


"We might wonder how humans could have accumulated so much genetic diversity when we are such an evolutionarily ‘young’ species, but this assumes that the human species arose by an extreme founding event - a time at which the entire species’ diversity resided in just a few individuals - and that all humans today are descended from those few founders. This supposed event is often conflated with the concept of “mitochondrial Eve,” a woman who lived roughly 200,000 years ago and is the most recent common ancestor of all human mtDNA. This conflation is incorrect, however, because the coalescence of mtDNA to a single ancestor back in time does not imply a demographic bottleneck, but is expected even in a population of constant size.[44] Avise (2001) has noted that in a hypothetical population with 15,000 breeding females (about three times the long-term human estimate), reasonable variances in reproductive success would likely see mtDNA coalesce to a single founding lineage in 300,000 years (~15,000 human generations), without any change in population size.[45] Thus, the coalescence time of human mtDNA doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with a population bottleneck or speciation event, but rather is more or less a function of long-term effective population size, with a large standard error.[46] Variants of nuclear autosomal genes, having a four-fold greater effective population size than mtDNA, generally coalesce in the neighborhood of 800,000 years ago.[47] This indicates that a substantial amount of our existing genetic variation originated in the population ancestral to modern humans."



"At any rate, divergence times for major subdivisions within the human species, while relatively shallow, are certainly not unique when compared to subdivisions within many other mammal species. An appendix to Avise et al. (1998)[64] lists eleven mammal species with major phylogroups that diverged between 100,000 and 500,000 years ago, based on mtDNA sequence divergence. Being a single genetic locus, mtDNA is subject to selection effects and a large amount of random variation, so these times are probably not terribly reliable. For example, mtDNA has indicated 2-3 million years of isolation between western and eastern gorilla subspecies in Africa, but a recent study of multiple nuclear loci provided little support for that time depth.[65] A related situation exists in chimpanzee taxonomy, particularly with regard to the distinctiveness of the eastern (P.t. schweinfurthii) and western equatorial (P.t. troglodytes) subspecies. Studies utilizing nuclear loci,[66,67] as well as more thorough sampling of mtDNA, are calling into question earlier mtDNA results that indicated long separation. As some of these chimp researchers point out, “The current volatile state of chimpanzee molecular taxonomy is largely due to the fact that studies to date have relied heavily on only a handful of genetic loci.”[68]"


"By analysis of classical markers, Nei & Roychoudhury (1993) identified five major human clades: sub-Saharan Africans, Caucasians, Greater Asians, Australopapuans and Amerindians. Evolutionary trees constructed with autosomal RFLPs,[105] microsatellites[106] and Alu insertions[107] show similar topology. Frequently, Amerindians are grouped together with Asians, indicating four major clades, and it has been suggested that this should be a minimum.[108] Obviously, additional structure exists within each of these groups, but as we’ve seen, it’s generally weak compared to the differentiation among the ones listed here. For this reason alone, the term ‘race’ applies well to these major groupings."


All of these point to there being genetic differences between the races.

 

[Accountable]

The question of why, statistically, blacks commit more crime and are involved more in gang violence?


No, your dental hygene scenario is stupid and doesn't even relate to the situation.



Did you even read it?

*snip*


All of these point to there being genetic differences between the races.

And not one scrap point toward genetic propensities toward violence or criminal behavior. You drug yourself off your own track.

 

[All Else Failed]

Are you even paying attention? I'm arguing that race exists, not necessarily that race means that they will cause crime more. I think it has to do more with culture.

 

[Accountable]

Are you even paying attention? I'm arguing that race exists, not necessarily that race means that they will cause crime more. I think it has to do more with culture.

Then you're even farther off the subject of the thread than I thought. Please join me in apologizing to the rest of the contributors.

 

[All Else Failed]

I cannot apologize. What I am saying is related to what the conversation has evolved into.

 

[itsmeJonB]

 

[Guyzerr]

how did this thread turn into racism and why am i offended?

Probably because racism is a pretty offensive subject.

 

[Peter Parka]

Where are all of the white gangs that have tens of thousands of members across the country? There aren't any.

Wrong. Or maybe all those documentaries I've watched about the Ayran Brotherhood, Nazi Lowriders, Hells Angels ect ect are made up?