FYI, Cuthbert, except for my post #29 I meant every word I said.
Maybe the moderators should close this thread. The kiddies here (VYAZMA and maybe George - unless he's just playing devils advocate) evidently can't seem to have an adult conversation about a serious topic.
Cuthbert-You put too much on empirical evidence. We’re not necessarily dealing with purely physical systems here, like a chemist or a physicist would be. For example, there is a video of the owner of WTC7 saying to someone on a phone, shortly before WTC7 went down, to “pull it" (or whatever the phrase is in demolition parlance). That in itself makes any conclusion about the building “just collapsing" suspicious. There are many many other examples, but there’s a whole thread on this. My point is, it’s easy to say “empirical evidence" as if there’s some super duper gold standard of what that is, but in reality things aren’t so clear cut.What are you doing here?
FYI, Cuthbert, except for my post #29 I meant every word I said.I can tell you from past experiences, he does....and those positions are intractable....to say the least. :shut:
George is off base when he asserts that our criminal justice system is not biased against black males.
Blacks account for 12% of the population, 14% of annual marijuana users, and 31% of marijuana possession arrests.
http://www.precinctreporter.com/community/inland-empire/186-marijuana-arrest-stats-according-to-race
Blacks account for 12% of the population, 14% of annual marijuana users, and 31% of marijuana possession arrests.How does this prove that I am off base? You may as well say that the government is killing black babies since their infant mortality is higher than that of the white population. And the Jews must be cheating in chess since they have disproportionate number of chess masters.
With all this talk about an unfair legal system I think its important to point out this recent case of ageism in the legal system.
The grown man who stole $500 from the little kid is arrested while the sneaky little 3 year old who first stole the money from his mother’s purse gets off scott free. Where is the public outcry? How is that fair?
^
Keita; Kittles, Royal, Bonney, Furbert-Harris, Dunston, Rotimi (2004). Nature 36: S17–S20. doi:10.1038/ng1455. PMID 15507998 Conceptualizing human variation | Nature Genetics |url= missing title (help). “Modern human biological variation is not structured into phylogenetic subspecies (‘races’), nor are the taxa of the standard anthropological ‘racial’ classifications breeding populations. The ‘racial taxa’ do not meet the phylogenetic criteria. ‘Race’ denotes socially constructed units as a function of the incorrect usage of the term.”
^ Harrison, Guy (2010). Race and Reality. Amherst: Prometheus Books. “Race is a poor empirical description of the patterns of difference that we encounter within our species. The billions of humans alive today simply do not fit into neat and tidy biological boxes called races. Science has proven this conclusively. The concept of race (…) is not scientific and goes against what is known about our ever-changing and complex biological diversity.”
^ AAPA 1996 Pure races, in the sense of genetically homogeneous populations, do not exist in the human species today, nor is there any evidence that they have ever existed in the past.-p.714
^ AAA 1998: For example, “Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic ‘racial’ groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within ‘racial’ groups than between them.”
Wrong thread, Louis. And if you want me to answer, you better rework this “goulash” into a more coherent post.
George-And your theory regarding population density is nonsense not worth replying to. Sorry.http://theipti.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/covariance.pdf http://www.sascv.org/ijcjs/harries.html Here's just 2 sites with detailed studies and conclusions on population density and it's relation to crime rates. It's not my theory George! The studies are conclusive that population and SES are definite factors in crime. And I also quoted per capita GDP as a factor too. You forgot that one. All the studies show that when SES(social economic status) is taken into consideration population is a definite corollary to crime rate. Let alone SES by itself! I'm curious why you chose Jamaica and Uruguay as comparison subjects.
Wrong thread, Louis. And if you want me to answer, you better rework this "goulash" into a more coherent post.
George-And your theory regarding population density is nonsense not worth replying to. Sorry.Good strategy.
Blacks account for 12% of the population, 14% of annual marijuana users, and 31% of marijuana possession arrests.How does this prove that I am off base? You may as well say that the government is killing black babies since their infant mortality is higher than that of the white population. And the Jews must be cheating in chess since they have disproportionate number of chess masters. Over twice as many arrests per black users of pot vs arrests of white users. This a specific behavior engaged in by whites almost at the same percentage as blacks. To support your point you would need to say that there is something genetically different about them that makes them more prone to getting themselves arrested (other than their obvious blackness). You can remain incalcitrant, but I don't think you can win this argument.
It's a known fact in anthropology that the larger the group of people, the more likely they are to engage in violence. But studying relatively small and isolate tribes is not the same thing as applying the same formula to our complex world, where a number of different factors play a role. What kind of a factor does population density play in relation to violence? Why is Singapore in a second place in population density and among the safest places to live in? And how about that GDP? Does low income cause higher rate in crime or does it merely correlate with it? How do you know? Also, the moment you accuse me of racism, this conversation is over.George-And your theory regarding population density is nonsense not worth replying to. Sorry.http://theipti.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/covariance.pdf http://www.sascv.org/ijcjs/harries.html Here's just 2 sites with detailed studies and conclusions on population density and it's relation to crime rates. It's not my theory George! The studies are conclusive that population and SES are definite factors in crime. And I also quoted per capita GDP as a factor too. You forgot that one. All the studies show that when SES(social economic status) is taken into consideration population is a definite corollary to crime rate. Let alone SES by itself! I'm curious why you chose Jamaica and Uruguay as comparison subjects.
Blacks account for 12% of the population, 14% of annual marijuana users, and 31% of marijuana possession arrests.How does this prove that I am off base? You may as well say that the government is killing black babies since their infant mortality is higher than that of the white population. And the Jews must be cheating in chess since they have disproportionate number of chess masters. Over twice as many arrests per black users of pot vs arrests of white users. This a specific behavior engaged in by whites almost at the same percentage as blacks. To support your point you would need to say that there is something genetically different about them that makes them more prone to getting themselves arrested (other than their obvious blackness). You can remain incalcitrant, but I don't think you can win this argument. I see your point now--I haven't looked at the article until now. I am inclined to agree that based on these numbers it appears that racism does play a role here. I doubt, though, the same could be said about murder. Certainly a white person won't get to go home if they murder someone, no?
Blacks account for 12% of the population, 14% of annual marijuana users, and 31% of marijuana possession arrests.How does this prove that I am off base? You may as well say that the government is killing black babies since their infant mortality is higher than that of the white population. And the Jews must be cheating in chess since they have disproportionate number of chess masters. Over twice as many arrests per black users of pot vs arrests of white users. This a specific behavior engaged in by whites almost at the same percentage as blacks. To support your point you would need to say that there is something genetically different about them that makes them more prone to getting themselves arrested (other than their obvious blackness). You can remain incalcitrant, but I don't think you can win this argument. I see your point now--I haven't looked at the article until now. I am inclined to agree that based on these numbers it appears that racism does play a role here. I doubt, though, the same could be said about murder. Certainly a white person won't get to go home if they murder someone, no? Well. I suspect that anyone who is wealthy has a better chance of getting away with murder in our criminal justice system. And whites are wealthier, I think, on percentage, more than blacks. I suppose you could try to argue that whites are genetically more prone to becoming wealthy than blacks. Also, I wonder whether, for cultural reasons, whites may be more discreet about murder than blacks. (I haven't looked into this hypothesis, but, e.g., I vaguely recall some data suggesting that whites use poison as their mode of homicide moreso than blacks. And poisoning can go undetected relative to murder by gunshot/s.)
George-It's a known fact in anthropology that the larger the group of people, the more likely they are to engage in violence.Ok.
But studying relatively small and isolate tribes is not the same thing as applying the same formula to our complex world, where a number of different factors play a role.What formula? Who's studying isolate tribes?
What kind of a factor does population density play in relation to violence?You should read the studies I provided...they show that population density coupled with SES has a direct influence on crime rates.
Why is Singapore in a second place in population density and among the safest places to live in?I don't know. I'm not here to help you with your wonderment. Are you basing your assumptions on race and genetics because you don't know why Singapore is a safe place to live?
And how about that GDP? Does low income cause higher rate in crime or does it merely correlate with it? How do you know?Correlate is a fine enough term for me. We should avoid using the word cause.because that would imply that all low-income people engage in crime. Correlation shows that a given rate, or factor, or value will correspond to fluctuation in another given value. How I know is by studying data. And if you didn't know these simple facts about population density, SES and crime rates, you should never have dismissed them above. Especially without providing evidence to support racial genetics as a primary factor in a cause for crime(or violence), as you have vehemently argued for, here and in past threads.
George-Also, the moment you accuse me of racism, this conversation is over.Who cares. I'm not primarily responding to have a conversation with you. The conversation was over 3 pages ago or so.
You don’t know why the dense population of Singapore (and number of other countries) doesn’t correlate with high crime? I thought you have studied the facts on density population, SES and crime rates. 
You don't know why the dense population of Singapore (and number of other countries) doesn't correlate with high crime? I thought you have studied the facts on density population, SES and crime rates. :-)No because I don't study Singapore. But a cursory check reveals a GDP per capita of around $60,000. That's more than the U.S. That would denote a relatively contented society with a sound SES. It would also indicate a country with enough fiscal attributes to allocate resources for crime prevention. And I know Singapore does. Anything else?
Wrong thread, Louis. And if you want me to answer, you better rework this "goulash" into a more coherent post.The point, since you serm to have missed it, is that there is no such thing as race from a biological perspective, so your argument that some people, categorized by your purely subjective ideas about race, cause more crime, falls flat. “Modern human biological variation is not structured into phylogenetic subspecies (‘races’), nor are the taxa of the standard anthropological ‘racial’ classifications breeding populations. The ‘racial taxa’ do not meet the phylogenetic criteria. ‘Race’ denotes socially constructed units as a function of the incorrect usage of the term." If that's too complicated for you, just read the last sentence, “Race is a poor empirical description of the patterns of difference that we encounter within our species. The billions of humans alive today simply do not fit into neat and tidy biological boxes called races. Science has proven this conclusively. The concept of race (...) is not scientific and goes against what is known about our ever-changing and complex biological diversity." Read the last sentence in the above quote, too. I'm sorry that you can't understand such words an phrases as these scientists use them. What they say is the essence of the definition of race--it's all in your mind. ....
You don't know why the dense population of Singapore (and number of other countries) doesn't correlate with high crime? I thought you have studied the facts on density population, SES and crime rates. :-)No because I don't study Singapore. But a cursory check reveals a GDP per capita of around $60,000. That's more than the U.S. That would denote a relatively contented society with a sound SES. It would also indicate a country with enough fiscal attributes to allocate resources for crime prevention. And I know Singapore does. Anything else? You don't study Singapore? So how do you know about their GDP? Could it be because that fact is convenient for you to cherry-pick, unlike their population density? Sorry, but if you tell me that Jamaica has a high crime due to being densely populated then you have to also explain why Singapore being a lot more densely populated is practically free of crime. You don't need to explain anything else.