Excessive_Toker
Well-Known Member
Nah! I think I'll stick around for a moment. I bet you will really enjoy my next thread. I said bet but implied as a figure of speech. We both know you you don't honor your bets.
Blacks are Responsible for More Than 50% of All Homicides...
- Thread starter Excessive_Toker
- Start date
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you'll be banned soonNah! I think I'll stick around for a moment. I bet you will really enjoy my next thread. I said bet but implied as a figure of speech. We both know you you don't honor your bets.
Excessive_Toker
Well-Known Member
Onoz!!
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
It's a compendium of other articles. There isn't any real work on the part of the authors in that thing. Nothing in there that backs conclusions. The type of argument that best fits what that thing is, is an appeal to authority.
I'm not about to go into each and every article cited in there, are you? I don't think so. If we take out the references, all it is is a collection of opinions without data to back it up. So, no. On the face of it, one should reject that kind of article.
Then, let's just look at this: Lions dark manes are like people's skin color. do you believe that?
Not to mention the play on the stereotype of the aggressive black man or the sex crazed negro.
I posted an article that was over forty pages and contained results of real work that shows in the US, violence is a complex issue including factors of childhood trauma, deprivation, broken families among others, not race, in an of itself. This was good work and explained very well. I don't care if you didn't read it, but then don't expect me to give you fair treatment in return. That said I did read your article and found it to be very weak on proving it's points. It just quotes articles and extracts from whatever the author chose.
Moving on from there, you keep wanting to inject skin color into statements where it doesn't belong.
Being black doesn't make you more likely to commit a crime, being born black in a crime filled community might though.
Being black doesn't make you more likely to commit a crime, being born in a crime filled community might though.
I include the two similar statements to show how insidious bias is. I ask, in the first version, yours, why did you feel the need to inject "black" into the statement? Is it any harder to avoid becoming a criminal when living in poverty if one is of one skin color or another? Yet your statement separates the black child from others and says it's difficult for the black child to avoid the life of a criminal.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
you are a bot
907cannabis
Well-Known Member
Because we were talking about reasons for why there are statistics that say blacks commit more violent crime, it was only a reference I wasn't saying that only black people would be affected. I was saying that being born black in a crime filled community is what makes the flawed statistics.
I felt If I said it the other way it was getting off topic but I see what you're saying, and I agree fully. I was merely pointing out what you had showed me in a way that was directed toward the topic of statistics.
907cannabis
Well-Known Member
About the lion thing and the color of fur feathers and skin, I was just pointing it out, I know that we have the capacity in all of us to be good. I'm very science driven though which is why I vote liberal. Even when presented with flawed data I like to compare things to my own observations.
We do observe weird correlations in nature that are sometimes unexplainable, everything from the color of your skin to the way you react to the emotions you have individually are a result of chemical amounts and synthesis in the body and brain, these things are genetic but obviously diet and other things are involved.
I only make comparisons like the next one to show you that this is a possibility. Black men in fact have a larger penis and Achilles tendon length average than white men, this occurs more in diverse populations but is observable around the world. These are just body organs like the brain, what stops our brains from being wired differently?
I don't think questioning this is racist, I would question white people being more likely to be corrupt and violent in different ways which they are a lot. We are all weird and have our own choices but the influences from our genetics (and society obviously) most likely are a real thing.
We do observe weird correlations in nature that are sometimes unexplainable, everything from the color of your skin to the way you react to the emotions you have individually are a result of chemical amounts and synthesis in the body and brain, these things are genetic but obviously diet and other things are involved.
I only make comparisons like the next one to show you that this is a possibility. Black men in fact have a larger penis and Achilles tendon length average than white men, this occurs more in diverse populations but is observable around the world. These are just body organs like the brain, what stops our brains from being wired differently?
I don't think questioning this is racist, I would question white people being more likely to be corrupt and violent in different ways which they are a lot. We are all weird and have our own choices but the influences from our genetics (and society obviously) most likely are a real thing.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
is that you, ginwilly?
just give it up. you and rushton are white supremacist shitbags
NrthrnMichigan
Well-Known Member
I believe it's due to freedom of speech and a failed education system.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
You want to talk about things you (nor I) know little about. Alright but do some homework, don't make me do it all. Also, go to original sources, not that strange goulash of excerpts from who knows where that you posted earlier.
This is why I come here. I occasionally encounter a question that is hard to answer. The very question does raise emotions because the harm that racism causes is not hypothetical to black (or Hispanic) people, the effect of racism in the US is very real. Rushton's book about racial difference purports to embrace the belief in genetic differences explain why (in his conclusion) blacks are more violent and less smart. For example, Rushton compares brain size to IQ and uses racial grouping to show how IQ and brain size tracks with race Black brain size & IQ < Caucasian < Asian. He does a lot of other studies or meta-studies like this to arrive at his claim that genetics explain about half of all differences between racial groups. Basically he give racists the justification for claiming inferiority of Black people. Does his work have any merit?
There isn't much out there available for free to read. Here is a link to one paper: http://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Suzuki-Aronson-commentary-on-30years.pdf . Suggest you open it up and try to read it. How long did you read before you went cross-eyed trying to follow the jargon?
How about this quote from the article: it should be noted that skin color and other phenotypic markers are only grossly related to race (Cohen, 2002). Therefore, the associations made by Rushton and Jensen (2005) between race and IQ are questionable.
Translation: The basic premise of a Black race in a genetic sense is vague in the first place. Linking the inaccurate concept IQ score to the vague concept of a black race is fake science.
Here is another paper that refutes the conclusion that race and IQ are linked: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8308/b9f55f341316dd47c3fdc569dc2a87e42daa.pdf
It too is practically impenetrable to the merely interested reader.
So, lets go to the source.
The above video is a debate where Rushtin lays out his theory 12:20 - 33:30. Here, you can get his argument from his very mouth. His body of work relies on metadata from various other studies that sum up to conclude that IQ of black people is lower than that of white people in large part is due to genetic difference. Please note that none of his work involved genes, it was just physical measurements and IQ tests.
In rebuttal, David Suzuki, a geneticist rebuts the article. He pretty much lays out the rebuttal to Rushtin here: 41:50 - 44:36 There is a lot more discussion but this is the nut of the rebuttal
The key point is: Such a set of studies that Rushtin used cannot prove a genetic basis for explaining the differences. This was a conclusion from an international association of geneticist researchers. The main problem with IQ testing is that it is impossible to exclude non-genetic factors like environment, racism, education on IQ scores comparing black and white test subjects.
Finally, look at the source of funding for much of the analytics used by Rushtin. The Pioneer Fund which the Southern Poverty Law Center labels as a "hate group", and which which many many prominent researchers label as "an organization solely designed to fund racism."
At root and reason for why this debate never ends is the fact that science is sloppy and never meets the expectations of the general population to provide clear answers. What racists like Rushtin does is make an unsubstantiated claim as being true beyond question. If the debate had stayed in the realm of science, he would have been required to prove his claim. But no. What happened is that Rushtin's claim is embraced by racist people and organizations to justify ending civil rights laws. Rushtin himself embraced that outcome. This leaves people like Suzuki in the odorous position of trying to prove Rushtin is wrong. Proving a negative is impossible and so the debate goes on.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
You are a bot
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
LOL
Well, you sandbagged me pretty good. I'll give you that.
You are much more plugged in to the fake science and theory of genetic racism than I gave you credit. What you said:
These are just body organs like the brain, what stops our brains from being wired differently?
I now know where you are coming from. This was a tip off. This is exactly what racists have been saying for almost 40 years, coincidentally about when the Civil Rights Laws began to bite into segregation and federal enforcement of equal rights laws.
This from
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8308/b9f55f341316dd47c3fdc569dc2a87e42daa.pdf
The 'a priori' argument has appeared in various places and in various forms, but the most scientific-sounding version appeared in Jensen's paper, which Eysenck quoted approvingly:
... the myth of racial equality, while more acceptable in principle to any liberal and well-meaning person than its opposite, is still a myth: there is no scientific evidence to support it. Indeed, as Jensen has pointed out, the a priori probability of such a belief is small: Nearly every anatomical, physiological, and biological system investigated shows racial differences. Why should the brain be an exception?
Ah yes. Perfect. The appeal to ignorance. If we don't know something for certain why can't we just say it is true? The paper I linked to pretty much destroys that appeal to ignorance you just made but I'll leave it up to you to read and understand.
Last edited:
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i ran a two-faced white power clown named @ginwilly off this forum years ago. it was the same argument he made exactly.LOL
Well, you sandbagged me pretty good. I'll give you that.
You are much more plugged in to the fake science and theory of genetic racism than I gave you credit. What you said:
These are just body organs like the brain, what stops our brains from being wired differently?
I now know where you are coming from. This was a tip off. This is exactly what racists have been saying for almost 40 years, coincidentally about when the Civil Rights Laws began to bite into segregation and federal enforcement of equal rights laws.
This from
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8308/b9f55f341316dd47c3fdc569dc2a87e42daa.pdf
The 'a priori' argument has appeared in various places and in various forms, but the most scientific-sounding version appeared in Jensen's paper, which Eysenck quoted approvingly:
... the myth of racial equality, while more acceptable in principle to any liberal and well-meaning person than its opposite, is still a myth: there is no scientific evidence to support it. Indeed, as Jensen has pointed out, the a priori probability of such a belief is small: Nearly every anatomical, physiological, and biological system investigated shows racial differences. Why should the brain be an exception?
Ah yes. Perfect. The appeal to ignorance. If we don't know something for certain why can't we just say it is true? The paper I linked to pretty much destroys that appeal to ignorance you just made but I'll leave it up to you to read and understand.
me and @abandonconflict had a good time telling him that he needed to evolve from the neck up
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Totally ironic that the best argument a racist like @907cannabis has is the appeal to ignorance.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
you are a botNah! I think I'll stick around for a moment. I bet you will really enjoy my next thread. I said bet but implied as a figure of speech. We both know you you don't honor your bets.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
If you've done something you're ashamed of, you should apologize to your victim and restitute the poor child or his heirs.
Okay, now I'll answer your question a little more seriously, just for you because you've always been so polite to me.
I think it's wrong to fuck people who can't or haven't consented. I think people or systems that remove others consent are a big problem.
Which is also why I don't think legality and illegality are concepts that can be applied as a universal catchall for right and wrong. You're a little slow on the uptake and I'm not sure if I want to bother explaining that to you though.
907cannabis
Well-Known Member
I'm not saying it's true, I think it's interesting, more or less media and movies throughout our lives lead us to believe a lot of this stuff, by the way it's nice to have someone do some research for me thanks.
I was litterally reading about the priori argument after I sent that, the writer arguing against it even says it's a very convincing argument.
My mind tells me it's society and culture/influence that causes reoccuring violence, the income inequality, lack of good people promoting good teaching.
I think we evolve in different ways depending on where we are in the world, and our behaviors evolve differently depending on what's considered normal locally.
Im sure we all have a similar average capacity for intelegence, I like the semantics scholar pdf you provided it has a lot of great information.
I was litterally reading about the priori argument after I sent that, the writer arguing against it even says it's a very convincing argument.
My mind tells me it's society and culture/influence that causes reoccuring violence, the income inequality, lack of good people promoting good teaching.
I think we evolve in different ways depending on where we are in the world, and our behaviors evolve differently depending on what's considered normal locally.
Im sure we all have a similar average capacity for intelegence, I like the semantics scholar pdf you provided it has a lot of great information.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Sounds like a decent sketch for a Netflix series.
Damn I better get back to doing pushups and get working on my tan for the shirtless scenes.
PCXV
Well-Known Member
Thank you!
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Yes, I was busting your balls and made you the co-star in a hypothetical scenario with the badman.
You had been running away from a real discussion of what consent is and isn't. I mean it was a hypothetical scenario right? The badman didn't give you $14 for any services you provided did he?