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.And because natural selection is nonsense bats couldn't have evolved echolocation. And the Bible must be true because it was written by God, and God exists because it says so in the Bible, right? :-)
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. .... Debating whether the concept of race is scientific does not negate that we humans do pervasively classify others into the boxes that we typically identify with race. This doesn't just happen in our minds, it is also reflected in our overt behavior. This leads to social problems such as blacks getting the short end of the stick in our criminal justice system.
George-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.I originally stated Population and GDP per capita remember? Why do you keep focusing on just population? Right from the get go you stated: "And your theory regarding population density is nonsense not worth replying to. Sorry." But I listed the comparisons between population density and GDP per capita. See? I know you want to make this an argument about "he said she said" concerning population to deflect away from your original statement. Let's get back to your original comparison between Jamaica and Uruguay. And why you chose those 2 countries? Are you still contending that blacks are more genetically disposed towards violence or crime? I've easily shown why the crime rates differ between those two countries.(there's historical factors as well as geographical factors as well...) If you disagree with my reasons, perhaps you could expound on your genetic theories?
Well, we are getting to the point where I don’t know what else to say. I can’t say what I want to say without being accused of racism (and potentially being banned from this forum, as I have been warned about), so we’ll just have to let it be. If I change my mind and decide to do the Giordano Bruno thing instead of the Galileo thing, that is, “dying” (getting banned) for my beliefs, I’ll let you know.
Well, we are getting to the point where I don't know what else to say. I can't say what I want to say without being accused of racism (and potentially being banned from this forum, as I have been warned about), so we'll just have to let it be. If I change my mind and decide to do the Giordano Bruno thing instead of the Galileo thing, that is, "dying" (getting banned) for my beliefs, I'll let you know.Well, I don't want you to get banned. They've warned me for being too inflammatory of late. It's a joke! The stance you're taking is racist by default. I'm not accusing of you of hatred in that sense, or not whole ignorance. But attempting to classify people by perceived faults or attributes based on race... is racism! I find it also very, very hard to believe that you can't consider SES and population density a factor in crime rates. Very few people would dispute this. Of course from the get go we never determined types of crime, crime dispersal into districts by type, and amount. How various countries and or cities compile crime statistics and what they do to hide it(Singapore) or advertise it(large cities who want more money for police.) I never even bothered to mention other historical factors that come into play concerning the comparison of Jamaica and Uraguay. Obviously Jamaica was a Totalitarian Slave colony from it's beginnings and has ascended henceforth from those ashes. I'm assuming you knew this. So knowing this and Jamaica's extremely limited natural resources as compared to Uraguays, how could you not take those factors into consideration? How? It boggles my mind. Do you factor in historical contexts at all when discussing social political subjects? Do you think historical factors are not relevant? Do you factor in current social political factors at all? Aside from economic factors?
Well, we are getting to the point where I don't know what else to say. I can't say what I want to say without being accused of racism (and potentially being banned from this forum, as I have been warned about), so we'll just have to let it be. If I change my mind and decide to do the Giordano Bruno thing instead of the Galileo thing, that is, "dying" (getting banned) for my beliefs, I'll let you know.I, for one, hope that you don't die (get banned). As I have come to enjoy challenging those of your beliefs, that seem to me, to be misinformed or which are over-generalizations of data or which are over-generalizations of some of the many enlightened books that you have read. I also enjoy your, what seems to me, extensive knowledge about paleoanthropology. (All this despite the fact that you can be irritating at times.)
Well, we are getting to the point where I don't know what else to say. I can't say what I want to say without being accused of racism (and potentially being banned from this forum, as I have been warned about), so we'll just have to let it be. If I change my mind and decide to do the Giordano Bruno thing instead of the Galileo thing, that is, "dying" (getting banned) for my beliefs, I'll let you know.If you thought you had a valid argument you wouldn't care about being called a racist. You would stand up for your principles because you would know they are right. You wouldn't be banned from the forum for stating your opinion on race as long as you arent attacking someone personally. It doesn't work like that. Fortunately for you, you'll never have to die for your beliefs. Certainly not on this forum, anyway. Lois
Okay, guys, thanks for all your thoughtful comments but we’ll really have to leave it for another day. 
By far, the number of drug addicted newborns we get are white. As a matter of fact, I can’t remember the last black drug addicted infant I cared for in my hospital in the NICU. Occasionally, we will get a Hispanic drug addicted baby. If you look at the drug arrests and convictions in my county, they are by far…black. Something is wrong with those numbers.
By far, the number of drug addicted newborns we get are white. As a matter of fact, I can't remember the last black drug addicted infant I cared for in my hospital in the NICU. Occasionally, we will get a Hispanic drug addicted baby. If you look at the drug arrests and convictions in my county, they are by far....black. Something is wrong with those numbers.If you are not aware of the book, The New Jim Crow, it goes into how our perpetual "War on Drugs" has helped relegate blacks disproportionately to a being a virtual under caste. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Jim_Crow You may also appreciate that it is written by a woman. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Alexander
I see she did a study in Oakland. CA. Even when I worked in Oakland, CA, the number of black drug addicted babies were out-weighed by whites, and you would expect the reverse based on the number of drug convictions in Oakland. A hospital in Oakland drug tested all of the pregnant women over the course of (I believe) a year. They found that drug usage across race, AND socioeconomic class was pretty identical. This study was done in the 1990s.
Certainly a white person won't get to go home if they murder someone, no?You would be surprised, George; whites in the US do get treated better by the criminal justice in most areas of the US - even if they admit to murder. Money is an issue - because money can buy better lawyers, but simple racial favoritism is also involved. For example, Baltimore Maryland has a huge gang problem. The city is majority black, and so is the city government. The murder cases in Baltimore are entirely made up of black suspects, but few receive big sentences because the black criminal justice system in town doesn't want to see "more young brutha's go down in the system". This is actually what they say. In the counties surrounding Baltimore it's the opposite. White business owners can use deadly force against black robbers (within the legal limits) and generally get away with it, because the metro area is mostly white. It's no different in most parts of the US.
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.)Maybe, in "Clue" they use poison. :lol: White murderers use firearms and knives in mostly all cases. Your comment about whites being more discreet about murder rings true if you take into account that inner city blacks simply brag more - it's part of their culture! :smirk: Outside of that, you can't really be discreet about murder.
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.)Maybe, in "Clue" they use poison. :lol: White murderers use firearms and knives in mostly all cases. Your comment about whites being more discreet about murder rings true if you take into account that inner city blacks simply brag more - it's part of their culture! :smirk: Outside of that, you can't really be discreet about murder. It certainly is possible to be discrete about murder. Clearly there are unsolved murder cases. The perpetrators in these cases are not included in data. Certainly, it is possible also for other murders to occur and for no one other than the perpetrator to know about it. e.g., 1) a person in poor health or an infant could be suffocated and it could be determined to be natural causes 2) a person could be poisoned, and this might not be identified 3) you could push someone off of a cliff and report it as they accidentally fell 4) a drug addict could be given a fatal overdose and it could be assumed to be self inflicted 5) a person could be murdered in such a way that it is believed to be a suicide. 6) etc. 7) etc. None of these would be reported in the data on homicide rates. The data that we have show that young black males are (by far) the most over-represented group when it comes to perpetrating homicide. My point was to question the validity of our data. Also, in my suppostion, I didn't say that poisoning was the preferred mode of homicide by whites, just that (of the data I recalled) that whites used poison to commit murder more than blacks have. FYI, (I just looked this up.) Tens of thousands of people die each year of poisoning. Most of these are accidental, but a significant portion are listed by pathlogists as undetermined, IOW, suspicious, but are not included in data on homicide. http://jimfisher.edinboro.edu/forensics/fire/tox.html
It certainly is possible to be discrete about murder. Clearly there are unsolved murder cases. The perpetrators in these cases are not included in data. Certainly, it is possible also for other murders to occur and for no one other than the perpetrator to know about it. e.g., 1) a person in poor health or an infant could be suffocated and it could be determined to be natural causes 2) a person could be poisoned, and this might not be identified 3) you could push someone off of a cliff and report it as they accidentally fell 4) a drug addict could be given a fatal overdose and it could be assumed to be self inflicted 5) a person could be murdered in such a way that it is believed to be a suicide. 6) etc. 7) etc.I don't want to derail this thread further by responding in detail to each of the examples above, but all except perhaps number 1, are basically impossible to get away with. Unsolved murders don't imply discreteness as much as they imply police ineptitude, apathy, or chance.
Also, in my suppostion, I didn't say that poisoning was the preferred mode of homicide by whites, just that (of the data I recalled) that whites used poison to commit murder more than blacks have.Yes, this is true - I apologize for not rereading that.
It certainly is possible to be discrete about murder. Clearly there are unsolved murder cases. The perpetrators in these cases are not included in data. Certainly, it is possible also for other murders to occur and for no one other than the perpetrator to know about it. e.g., 1) a person in poor health or an infant could be suffocated and it could be determined to be natural causes 2) a person could be poisoned, and this might not be identified 3) you could push someone off of a cliff and report it as they accidentally fell 4) a drug addict could be given a fatal overdose and it could be assumed to be self inflicted 5) a person could be murdered in such a way that it is believed to be a suicide. 6) etc. 7) etc.I don't want to derail this thread further by responding in detail to each of the examples above, but all except perhaps number 1, are basically impossible to get away with. Unsolved murders don't imply discreteness as much as they imply police ineptitude, apathy, or chance. Then in the service of not de-railing, we can agree to disagree on the various possible ways of getting away with murder, my main point is that some perpetrators of homicide are not included in the data that we have on murder rates, thus our data may be suspect when it comes to establishing the rates of some classified group vs another.
It certainly is possible to be discrete about murder. Clearly there are unsolved murder cases. The perpetrators in these cases are not included in data. Certainly, it is possible also for other murders to occur and for no one other than the perpetrator to know about it. e.g., 1) a person in poor health or an infant could be suffocated and it could be determined to be natural causes 2) a person could be poisoned, and this might not be identified 3) you could push someone off of a cliff and report it as they accidentally fell 4) a drug addict could be given a fatal overdose and it could be assumed to be self inflicted 5) a person could be murdered in such a way that it is believed to be a suicide. 6) etc. 7) etc.I don't want to derail this thread further by responding in detail to each of the examples above, but all except perhaps number 1, are basically impossible to get away with. Unsolved murders don't imply discreteness as much as they imply police ineptitude, apathy, or chance. Then in the service of not de-railing, we can agree to disagree on the various possible ways of getting away with murder, my main point is that some perpetrators of homicide are not included in the data that we have on murder rates, thus our data may be suspect when it comes to establishing the rates of some classified group vs another. Are you saying there might possibly be something wrong with our statistics and the way they are interpreted? That's sacrilege! Lois
Are you saying there might possibly be something wrong with our statistics and the way they are interpreted? That's sacrilege! LoisI recognize that you jest, but within a scientific methodology, I think that it would actually be "sacrilege" to purposely avoid questioning data and interpretation.