I have had the word 'Black' deleted from my post " Why do males shoot other males?"

Please could the moderator who did this give me a guide to when I can or can't use the word 'Black'?

I would like to point out that in light of being sensitive to the black population I chose to avoid entitling the thread 'Why do Blacks shoot other Blacks'.

I personally see on racist or negative use of the word 'Black' here in the title I chose, I was merely attempting to understand a Social issue that is prevalent within a certain demographic!

Surely the moderator who censored this post cannot claim that they aspire to think in a scientific manner?

Please could you make the rule on this forum clear in regard to the use of the word 'Black'.

Thank You

What's the political correct term nowadays?

No, it's not terminology, Spurious, it's something else! The moderators seem overly fearful of racism as a topic, but I don't know why. Refusing to talk about something makes it become a hidden issue, which can fester into something more and worse.

Open discussion is the only way racism is going to be dealt with ....other than outright force of arms ...forcing people to love each other, or die a horrible death!!! :)

Baron Max

Open discussion is the only way racism is going to be dealt with ...




hippie.

hippie.

...LOL! Hey, I'm trying like hell to be politically correct and overly generous ...you should cheer my efforts. I would normally have mentioned "open season", but I'd probably get banned again!

But, seriously, how can we hope to overcome something if we keep it hidden and refuse to talk about it openly? Does that seem like the way to go to you?

Baron Max

I believe the politically correct term these days is 'chocolate'.

And you should refer to us crackers as 'milk'.

That way we can all get together and boogey as 'milk chocolate'.

Hey. Is it racist that milk gets top billing? But, then again, milk is like an adjective to chocolate's chocolatey goodness.

Oreos 'N Cream for EVERYONE!!!

The moderators seem overly fearful of racism as a topic, but I don't know why.

I think it's more that they're tired of it.
For a long time there, some of the most active threads in the forum were the 'racist' threads.
And they all sucked ass. Boring. Accusations of racism. Reverse racism. Same old hackneyed crap with nobody listening to the other...

I'm surprised that James didn't just delete or cesspool the thread in question. Seems rather playful of him to change the title like that. I mean, the thread really had little going for it, did it?

It's funny they changed "blacks" to "males" and had the nerve to not change "shot" to "shoot." At least the authorities have humor on their side.

no, what's funny is people thinking that blacks are the only people that shoot people.

no, what's funny is people thinking that blacks are the only people that shoot people.

No, that's not what this topic is about at all! As I read it, the guy simply wanted to know why black people shoot THEIR OWN people as opposed to white people, which many blacks claim to hate.

But besides that, per capita, all of the stats of the FBI show that blacks shoot more people than whites ...it's a simple, plain, ordinary fact and easily reviewed on the FBI crime stats page. Blacks make up only about 12% of the population in the USA, but are involved in the majority of violent crimes.

Baron Max

I suppose that there are people who believe that the oppression of blacks ended some time before 1960. Hey, in Kansas city the law fucks with them every chance they get. They've slowed down, not stopped.

I suppose that there are people who believe that the oppression of blacks ended some time before 1960. Hey, in Kansas city the law fucks with them every chance they get. They've slowed down, not stopped.

Well, maybe if the blacks of KC didn't riot, collect in gangs on the streets and be responsible for such massive crime, they might enjoy some of the police protections that the rest of us law-abiding citizens enjoy.

Oppression is a subjective term ...and it's used now by most blacks only to stir up the racist crap where none might have been in evidence. And the more they talk about it, and scream it out, the more problems they create. If the blacks would clean up their own neighborhoods, perhaps the cops would help them out a little bit more.

Baron Max

The question of the thread is explaining male behaviour. Since shooting each other is not a racial issue, the insertion of the word "blacK" was nothing more than an attempt to incite racial hatred. Hence, the title was minimally changed.

No. It was asking about chocolate behavior.
And not trying to incite hatred.
Everybody LOVES chocolate.

Hey James.
You could have changed the title of my "make fun of blacks" thread. It had a terrible title, but had some good content.

I just think it's kinda gay that blacks can make fun of whites, but whites can't make fun of blacks.

I think it's a good question whether black men shoot each other more than white men do. It isn't a question of race in itself. It is true that black men in many places in the U.S. are treated much worse than white men are.

I just think it's kinda gay that blacks can make fun of whites, but whites can't make fun of blacks.

You're homophobic as well as racist?

I like milk chocolate.
I hate dark chocolate.

I'm not racist though.

The question of the thread is explaining male behaviour. Since shooting each other is not a racial issue, the insertion of the word "blacK" was nothing more than an attempt to incite racial hatred. Hence, the title was minimally changed.
James, you are mistaken and should return the thread to its original name. Concern about "Black on Black" crime has been around for a long time. Here's an article from Cincinatti about a bill passed by black councilmembers to deal with Black on Black crime.

Cincinnati's four black City Council members on Wednesday launched a campaign against the escalating homicides in the city, and said they want $100,000 to start it.

Standing across the street from the alley where a 21-year-old man was found shot to death Monday, the coalition announced the Black-on-Black Crime Initiative. http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/01/01/loc_bondhill01.html
Clearly these black councilmen feel blacks shooting blacks is a problem. Why don't you?

The second reason to keep the champagne corked is that not only is the number of young black criminals likely to surge, but also the black crime rate, both black-on-black and black-on-white, is increasing, so that as many as half of these juvenile super-predators could be young black males. But just when we need to think most earnestly about black crime, the space for honest discourse about race and crime is shrinking. http://www.city-journal.org/html/6_2_my_black.html
That's what you're doing. You're shutting down discussion on black crime, as though by doing so the issue will go away. It won't.

Why is it that most crimes committed by Blacks are committed against other Blacks? You will hear that question asked at gatherings of the most racist white reactionaries, and at great and grand convocations of African Americans of all political persuasions. In a perverse convergence of nonsensicality, very similar conclusions are usually drawn:http://www.blackcommentator.com/165/165_radio_bc/01_05_06_radio_bc_black_on_black_crime.html

From that last link:

http://www.blackcommentator.com/165/165_radio_bc/01_05_06_radio_bc_black_on_black_crime.html

American society devalues Black life, and every Black child knows it. Criminals operate within the parameters of the society in which they live, just like everybody else. They weigh their chances as they roll the dice. Every African American citizen in the nation understands that the dice are loaded mightily against them if they are convicted of a crime against a white person. It is only logical that the criminal-minded would choose Black targets of opportunity. After all, that's what white criminals did during Jim Crow. They were confident of impunity, when committing outrages against Black men and women. Why should Black criminals act any differently?

Black-on-Black crime is a product of white racism, which sees African Americans as less than full human beings. The Black criminal takes advantage of that fact. From his point of view, it is quite a logical choice.
It's bullshit of course. Well-meaning bullshit, but bullshit all the same. Black people don't kill black people. Black people mainly shoot (and commit crimes against) the people they know - and it just so happens that most of these happen to be black. White people mainly shoot (and commit crimes against) the people they know - and it just so happens that most of these happen to be white. It's no mystery.

I like milk chocolate.
I hate dark chocolate.

I'm not racist though.

Depends on your opinion on white chocolate.

Depends on your opinion on white chocolate.
It's a bit icky. I prefer the yummylicious racial melting pot that is milk chocolate.

You Sir! Are a prime specimen of the human species.

We monkeys salute you!

So you approve of the concept of a 'melting pot', do you?

You think everything would be just fine if we were to suddenly start turning out 'chocolate-coloured people by the score', as the song goes?

You think that would solve all our problems, do you?

Racist.

Actually, I've just looked it up and it's coffee. Not chocolate. Coffee.

Which is off-topic. Sorry.

madanthonywayne:


James, you are mistaken and should return the thread to its original name. Concern about "Black on Black" crime has been around for a long time.

Concern about crime has been around a long time. Any sensible person knows that skin colour has nothing to do with crime. Being purple or white or yellow doesn't make you commit crimes.


Here's an article from Cincinatti about a bill passed by black councilmembers to deal with Black on Black crime.

So, there's a crime problem in Cincinatti, and presumably Cincinatti has a predominantly black population, at least in some areas. So what? The issue is crime, not race. Maybe they would do better to look at the actual causes of crime.


Clearly these black councilmen feel blacks shooting blacks is a problem. Why don't you?

I think it is a problem. I also think that whites shooting whites and blacks shooting whites and whites shooting blacks is a problem.

Why pretend that black people are the only people who shoot other people?


The second reason to keep the champagne corked is that not only is the number of young black criminals likely to surge, but also the black crime rate, both black-on-black and black-on-white, is increasing, so that as many as half of these juvenile super-predators could be young black males.

It's not rocket science. When America starts addressing its social issues, then the crime rate drops.


That's what you're doing. You're shutting down discussion on black crime, as though by doing so the issue will go away. It won't.

The issue is crime, not race. Your vision is just far too narrow, and all you see is the colour of people's skin.


Why is it that most crimes committed by Blacks are committed against other Blacks?

Because they are the closest people, most of the time.

Do a little basic reading on crime and criminals. Then come back and we can have an intelligent discussion instead of this racist bullshit.

The question of the thread is explaining male behaviour. Since shooting each other is not a racial issue, the insertion of the word "blacK" was nothing more than an attempt to incite racial hatred. Hence, the title was minimally changed.

James I am forced to call you a 'fool' with limited understanding.

I am from the UK and this post is in relation to shootings that happen here in the UK all the time between 'people who are darker than white people'. We even have a special police unit called 'Trident' who deal with this types of crime.

At the weekend two 'Darker than white' children were shoot and it was this incident that prompted the post. If people are dieing then this is an important issue as I am sure any sane person would agree?

Maybe James you do not have an understanding of Social issues within the UK (although this same problem is also apparent in the USA).

You have also accused me of inciting racial hatred this is a very strong claim James and one that you should think about before you state. You do not even know what race I am James, if I were 'Black' would my title be acceptable? If it was surely your approach could be considered racist?

In light of following forum rules I have request a clear defined policy on the use of the work 'Black' please could you give an outline of the policy? If you are willing to sensor then you must be willing to give guidance so people can comply.

I look forward to your reply.

So you approve of the concept of a 'melting pot', do you?

You think everything would be just fine if we were to suddenly start turning out 'chocolate-coloured people by the score', as the song goes?

You think that would solve all our problems, do you?

Racist.

Actually, I've just looked it up and it's coffee. Not chocolate. Coffee.

Which is off-topic. Sorry.

Oh, I thought we were talking about chocolate!

alexb123:

Please read the post immediately above yours.

At the weekend two 'Darker than white' children were shoot and it was this incident that prompted the post.
A week of gun crime
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article1772343.ece

* Saturday: Man shot in car in Kingsbury, north-west London; gunman fired two shots from adjacent vehicle.
Ethnic origins of victim: not specified

* Sunday: Daniel Ross, 22, shot dead on dancefloor of nightclub in King's Cross, London. Three people held.
Ethnic origins of victim: not specified

* Monday: Two men of Vietnamese origin seriously injured in shooting at nightclub in Brixton, south London.
Ethnic origins of victims: Vietnamese

* Tuesday: Nathan Williams, 17, (right) shot dead while cycling through Nottingham shopping area in suspected revenge attack.
Ethnic origins of victim: not specified

Man, in his twenties, shot several times in street in Finsbury Park, north London.
Ethnic origins of victim: not specified

* Thursday: Two teenagers wounded, one seriously, in shooting at McDonald's restaurant in Brixton.
Ethnic origins of victims: Afro-Caribbean (from linked article)

Girl, 16, shot by youth in Whalley Range, Greater Manchester; links to murder of Jesse James (murdered in Manchester eariler this month) being investigated.
Ethnic origins of victim: not specified

What if he used the words 'ethnic minority of afro-carribean descent'? Come on we all know this kind of gang behaviour is concerntrated in this group more than any other. Sorry James but Is this a science forum or PC forum?

What if he used the words 'ethnic minority of afro-carribean descent'? Come on we all know this kind of gang behaviour is concerntrated in this group more than any other. Sorry James but Is this a science forum or PC forum?
Are we talking about the US or the UK now? I'm confused.

In the US, most gang-related shootings are black-on-black.
In the UK, most gang-related shootings are white-on-white.

Are we talking about the US or the UK now? I'm confused.

In the US, most gang-related shootings are black-on-black.
In the UK, most gang-related shootings are white-on-white.


Was it was in the UK? my mistake, I didn't read it. I assumed it was an american gang crime. Sorry.

In the US, most gang-related shootings are black-on-black.
In the UK, most gang-related shootings are white-on-white.

This is true, however, the ratio of crimes per capita is higher in the ethnic population. this is what Trident attempting to fix, of course.

'Homicide statistics point to a serious problem of gun crime within a narrow section of the young black male population'.

(http://www.cre.gov.uk/Default.aspx.LocID-0hgnew04s.RefLocID-0hg00900c002.Lang-EN.htm)

A summary of the statistics is available in Here (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/s95race04.pdf#search=%22'Statistics%20on%20Race%20 and%20the%20Criminal%20Justice%20System%202003'%22 ).

James, if he wanted to talk about black people shooting other black people, I think he should be allowed.

No, that's not what this topic is about at all! As I read it, the guy simply wanted to know why black people shoot THEIR OWN people as opposed to white people, which many blacks claim to hate.

But besides that, per capita, all of the stats of the FBI show that blacks shoot more people than whites ...it's a simple, plain, ordinary fact and easily reviewed on the FBI crime stats page. Blacks make up only about 12% of the population in the USA, but are involved in the majority of violent crimes.

Baron Max
you put a few agitators in somewhere and they can cause all kinds of grief.

there are only a few reasons why this is so.
one is blacks have a quality or talent that somebody fears.
or
it's a ploy to create racial tension.

Where is all the white women at?

Chocolate need love too.

madanthonywayne:
Concern about crime has been around a long time. Any sensible person knows that skin colour has nothing to do with crime. Being purple or white or yellow doesn't make you commit crimes.

This is typical liberal censurship, you should work on a college campus, James. You'd fit right in. Here are some facts:


"Janet Reno's Justice Department flatly states that 'blacks are 8 times more likely than whites to commit homicide.'"



Homicide Offending Rates per 100,000 Population by Race
White Black Other
1976 4.9 46.6 4.6
1977 5.1 44.4 4.8
1978 5.3 44.6 3.8
1979 5.8 47.6 5.0
1980 6.4 51.4 7.0
1981 6.0 45.8 6.4
1982 5.6 41.2 6.4
1983 5.3 36.3 6.2
1984 5.3 33.1 5.3
1985 5.1 34.0 5.8
1986 5.3 37.9 6.0
1987 5.2 36.6 5.0
1988 4.9 41.2 4.5
1989 5.1 42.0 4.7
1990 5.6 46.6 4.2
1991 5.6 51.4 5.4
1992 5.2 47.0 5.7
1993 5.2 49.2 5.6
1994 5.1 45.4 5.1
1995 4.9 39.3 5.4
1996 4.5 35.8 4.8
1997 4.1 32.2 4.5
1998 4.2 27.8 3.9
1999 3.6 25.4 3.9
2000 3.5 25.6 3.3
2001 3.6 25.6 3.0
2002 3.6 25.0 2.9
2003 3.5 25.3 3.4
2004 3.6 24.1 2.7

Homicide Offenders by Race
White Black Other
1976 9,165 10,961 226
1977 9,527 10,620 241
1978 9,919 10,870 193
1979 11,083 11,838 265
1980 12,495 13,309 396
1981 11,692 12,421 362
1982 11,160 11,326 393
1983 10,505 10,102 400
1984 10,635 9,339 363
1985 10,242 9,705 425
1986 10,747 10,963 468
1987 10,569 10,724 411
1988 10,194 12,252 385
1989 10,611 12,669 428
1990 11,825 14,235 404
1991 11,759 15,966 543
1992 11,083 14,861 604
1993 11,208 15,814 615
1994 11,101 14,803 587
1995 10,582 12,990 640
1996 9,807 12,004 599
1997 9,106 10,920 578
1998 9,235 9,567 519
1999 8,012 8,850 541
2000 8,016 9,235 490
2001 8,282 9,423 461
2002 8,478 9,308 462
2003 8,280 9,574 560
2004 8,521 9,223 453

Source: FBI, Supplementary Homicide Reports, 1976-2004.
As these statistics show, race has absolutely nothing to do with murder rates and it would clearly be racist to even discuss that possibility based on such shakey evidence as a thirty year trend!

like james pointed out, you need to find the cause instead of saying "the color black is responsible".
there are only 2 choices here one is a genetic cause the other is an environmental cause. there is also a combination of the two.

like james pointed out, you need to find the cause instead of saying "the color black is responsible".
there are only 2 choices here one is a genetic cause the other is an environmental cause. there is also a combination of the two.

Well, the problem with that is that those "causes" must also fit with every other "race" of humans ....and they ain't found none yet that work!

Some will claim poverty and low education is the cause. But that don't work because there are many white areas that are poor as hell and lack education ....yet they don't have near the violent crime rate as the black areas.

Hmm, wanna' try some other "cause"? And rmeember, it has to work for all kinds of humans or your idealism about blacks just goes up in smoke.

Baron Max

there are exactly 2 causes baron, only 2.
genetics or environment or a combination thereof.

Some will claim poverty and low education is the cause. But that don't work because there are many white areas that are poor as hell and lack education ....yet they don't have near the violent crime rate as the black areas.

in this scenario you are forgetting the power of propaganda and the role of agitators.

The question of the thread is explaining male behaviour. Since shooting each other is not a racial issue, the insertion of the word "blacK" was nothing more than an attempt to incite racial hatred. Hence, the title was minimally changed.

but your not allowed to talk about that are you James, because you might hurt them because of the colour of their skin.

like james pointed out, you need to find the cause instead of saying "the color black is responsible".
there are only 2 choices here one is a genetic cause the other is an environmental cause. there is also a combination of the two.
You can forward any hypothesis you like, but James is saying it's not permisible to even discuss the issue. The fact that the black homicide rate is eight times that of the white can not be discussed. To do so would be racist. To take note of any disparity in crime statistics between various racial or ethnic groups is racist. Any discussion is taboo. Kind of like showing a picture of Mohamad.

You can forward any hypothesis you like, but James is saying it's not permisible to even discuss the issue.
the only way to solve anything is to scare it out into the light.
the issue must eventually be discussed sometime, somewhere.

The fact that the black homicide rate is eight times that of the white can not be discussed.
i think what needs discussed is the causes.
what do you think are the causes of the high homicide rate among blacks?

To do so would be racist.
to discuss high homicide rates among black without discussing causes and/or solutions would most definately be racist.

To take note of any disparity in crime statistics between various racial or ethnic groups is racist.
see above

Any discussion is taboo.
i disagree. discussing causes and/or solutions is not taboo.

Kind of like showing a picture of Mohamad.
who's Mohamad?

the only way to solve anything is to scare it out into the light.
the issue must eventually be discussed sometime, somewhere.

i disagree. discussing causes and/or solutions is not taboo.
Well, James won't let us discuss the topic. It's taboo.

who's Mohamad?
Perhaps I should draw a picture?

madanthonywayne:

If you have noticed, you're talking about it right now, so you can hardly shout "censorship!"

You have a far too much trust in crime statistics. Do you actually believe that crime statistics reflect the total amount of crime being committed?

And why concentrate on violent crime? What about white collar crime, for example, which hurts far more people?

If you have noticed, you're talking about it right now, so you can hardly shout "censorship!"
Oh, I've noticed. But the topic of discussion does not match the thread title due to your censorship. Many people who might have an interest in this topic and something to add to the discussion may be missing out on the discussion due to the misleading thread title.

You have a far too much trust in crime statistics. Do you actually believe that crime statistics reflect the total amount of crime being committed?
I'm fairly confident about homicide statistics. After all, there's a dead body. Sure, many other crimes may go unreported. But surely more than ninety percent of homicides are detected, even if there if no conviction.

And why concentrate on violent crime? What about white collar crime, for example, which hurts far more people?
Because violent crime actually hurts people. Murder is a much greater crime than theft.

Oh, I've noticed. But the topic of discussion does not match the thread title due to your censorship.

There are plenty of racist threads on this forum. They're interchangable. They always carry the same racist content, and quote the same racist websites. Use one of them. Or, better yet, go look at a racist website directly.


Many people who might have an interest in this topic and something to add to the discussion may be missing out on the discussion due to the misleading thread title.

It's not my fault if discussions drift off topic.


I'm fairly confident about homicide statistics. After all, there's a dead body. Sure, many other crimes may go unreported. But surely more than ninety percent of homicides are detected, even if there if no conviction.

If there's no conviction, how do you know a homicide was committed by a black or white or purple-with-pink-polkadots person?


Because violent crime actually hurts people. Murder is a much greater crime than theft.

What about corporate crime? Corporate crime kills people in much larger numbers, but you don't seem worried about that.

What about corporate crime? Corporate crime kills people in much larger numbers, but you don't seem worried about that.
Really. I don't recall any corporate drive by shootings. Please be specific on how corporate crime kills more people than all forms of violent crime combined.

Please be specific on how corporate crime kills more people than all forms of violent crime combined.

To take one example, consider the sale of cigarettes.

You have a far too much trust in crime statistics. Do you actually believe that crime statistics reflect the total amount of crime being committed?

It's actually rather a complicated issue because people will report more crimes in countries where they feel there is a proper law enforcement agency. This can for instance explain actually high crime rates in certain European countries. When you would live in these countries you will actually notice less crime than in some countries that have similar crime statistics but a different view on the law enforcement agencies. So in reality they are safer but on paper there is not that much difference.

And this is merely one aspect of the difficulties of crime statistics.

To take one example, consider the sale of cigarettes.

Since when did the sale of cigarettes become a crime?

Baron Max

It's actually rather a complicated issue because people will report more crimes in countries where they feel there is a proper law enforcement agency. ..... And this is merely one aspect of the difficulties of crime statistics.

But mostly I've seen the stats for the US and those are usually collected and recorded by the FBI. Your statement wouldn't seem to be the case for the US.

So what other excuses can you come up with for the high rate of violent crime for blacks in the USA? And do you suppose that if we come up with enough excuses, and invalid "reasons", that we can just make crime disappear althogether? ..LOL!

Facing facts is often one of the most difficult aspects in seeking to solve some problem. If we're selective with the facts, and overlook other facts, then we're not likely to be able to solve the problem.

I think each and every one of you know that, in the US, blacks commit a higher rate of crime than any other "races" in the US. That's a simple, plain fact ...refusing to face it is actually causing more problems in the attempt to solve that problem.

Baron Max

So what other excuses can you come up with for the high rate of violent crime for blacks in the USA? And do you suppose that if we come up with enough excuses, and invalid "reasons", that we can just make crime disappear althogether? ..LOL!

It merely shows your hipocrisy. To fail to acknowledge the existance of the problem and hence cannot work towards a solution. You complain about crime but are not willing to see the causes. If you cannot see the causes you cannot think about a structural solution. .. YEEHAW!



Facing facts is often one of the most difficult aspects in seeking to solve some problem. If we're selective with the facts, and overlook other facts, then we're not likely to be able to solve the problem.

certainly you will not solve any problem if you always blame everything on race. Because it is the easiest solution. Since you cannot really change anything about that. An easy scapegoat. You are desperate in thinking that nothing is intrinsically wrong with your society and hence there must be something intrinsically wrong with 'blacks.

This my friend is not critical thought. It is hiding from the ugly truth. You made a mess of your society and you will not take the responsibility to change it.

I t
hink each and every one of you know that, in the US, blacks commit a higher rate of crime than any other "races" in the US. That's a simple, plain fact ...refusing to face it is actually causing more problems in the attempt to solve that problem.

Baron Max

No, refusing the obvious truth is causing the problems. You build a society with classes. You build a society on greed. You build a society on selfishness. In fact you build a society by not having one.

Start working on the real problem and crime will go down. Continue blaming everything on blacks will not change anyhting.

It merely shows your hipocrisy. To fail to acknowledge the existance of the problem and hence cannot work towards a solution.

Hmm, what problem, Spurious? You mean that blacks commit more violent crime than any other races? ...that problem???


You complain about crime but are not willing to see the causes.

Yeah, but don't ya' have to see the problem, admit the problem, face the problem, ......BEFORE.... you can begin to solve it? So now ....what's the problem, Spurious? ...that blacks commit more violent crime than any other races? ...that problem???


...certainly you will not solve any problem if you always blame everything on race.

where did I blame anything on race? It's a simple fact, as I see it, that blacks commit more violent crime than any other races. I don't know why that is, but it's a proven fact. And until we're willing to admit it, to face the facts, we'll have no chance of solving it. It would be much like discovering that only blacks contract some deadly disease, but then work on non-blacks in order to find a cure!


You are desperate in thinking that nothing is intrinsically wrong with your society and hence there must be something intrinsically wrong with 'blacks.

Spurious, if only blacks show any symptoms of a disease, you don't begin to research the disease in non-whites! Something, whatever it is, is causeing blacks to commit more violent crime than any other races, so that's where we must begin in solving the problem. Ignoring the facts, blinding oneself to those simple facts, does not one any good ..least of all the black community.


It is hiding from the ugly truth. You made a mess of your society and you will not take the responsibility to change it.

How can we change it if we don't know what causes blacks to commit more violent crimes than any other races? Why are blacks the ones that seem most susceptible to the "mess of our society"? Why not whites, too? See? Something is affecting only the blacks with this disease. What is it?


You build a society with classes. You build a society on greed. You build a society on selfishness. In fact you build a society by not having one.

But you can't blame OUR society, because it's the same in other nations as well. Blacks commit more violent crime than any other races ....why?


Start working on the real problem and crime will go down.

What is the "real problem", then?


Continue blaming everything on blacks will not change anyhting.

I've never blamed blacks. But something is affecting THEM and apparently NOT affecting other races as much ....why?

Baron Max

Since when did the sale of cigarettes become a crime?

Baron Max
do you smoke baron?
do you really want to discuss why the sale of cigarettes is a crime?

So what other excuses can you come up with for the high rate of violent crime for blacks in the USA?
yes, and i pointed them out earlier in the thread

And do you suppose that if we come up with enough excuses, and invalid "reasons", that we can just make crime disappear althogether? ..LOL!
stick to the subject at hand


Facing facts is often one of the most difficult aspects in seeking to solve some problem.
what are the facts in this case baron, and don't give me any crap about black homocide rates

If we're selective with the facts, and overlook other facts,
something you seem to be doing quite well


I think each and every one of you know that, in the US, blacks commit a higher rate of crime than any other "races" in the US. That's a simple, plain fact ...refusing to face it is actually causing more problems in the attempt to solve that problem.
instead of flapping your lips about it why don't you suggest some frikken solutions, or better yet look at all the facts baron cause surely you're missing a few.

yes, and i pointed them out earlier in the thread

I think I've asked before, but if poverty and lack of education causes high rates of violent crime, then why aren't other non-black areas NOT listed as high crime areas? ....like Appalachian areas? ...like the southwest USA area? ...or the many predominately white, poor areas of the nation?

See? You can say that poverty and lack of education is the cause, but to be valid, then it must cause high crime in all areas, not JUST in black areas. So now .....what other excuses do you wish to provide?

Baron Max

I think I've asked before, but if poverty and lack of education causes high rates of violent crime, then why aren't other non-black areas NOT listed as high crime areas? ....like Appalachian areas? ...like the southwest USA area? ...or the many predominately white, poor areas of the nation?

See? You can say that poverty and lack of education is the cause, but to be valid, then it must cause high crime in all areas, not JUST in black areas. So now .....what other excuses do you wish to provide?

Baron Max
jesus baron you aren't that stupid so quit acting like it.

ever hear of agitators, propaganda, or the want to divide our people, or blacks having a quality or talent that someone fears?

so tell me baron, what are the causes?

http://www.exclaim.ca/images/fat_albert.jpg

To take one example, consider the sale of cigarettes.
That's the best you can do? Give me a break. Selling cigarettes is not a crime. Any deaths caused by smoking are no more "crimes" than deaths caused by lack of exercise and overeating.

If you consider selling cigarretes a crime, you must also favor the war on drugs, Since selling these dangerous substances would be a "crime".

I think I've asked before, but if poverty and lack of education causes high rates of violent crime, then why aren't other non-black areas NOT listed as high crime areas? ....like Appalachian areas? ...like the southwest USA area? ...or the many predominately white, poor areas of the nation?

See? You can say that poverty and lack of education is the cause, but to be valid, then it must cause high crime in all areas, not JUST in black areas. So now .....what other excuses do you wish to provide?

Ridiculous.

An incredibly crowded urban area cannot be compared with a bunch of people who don't have electricity and live acres away from each other, in terms of crime.

Ridiculous. An incredibly crowded urban area cannot be compared with a bunch of people who don't have electricity and live acres away from each other, in terms of crime.

Okay, fine ....there are also areas of the bigger cities where it's all or mostly all whites living in poor, white ghettos ...so can you show me any major, violent crimes in those areas that compare to the black ghettos?

Cole, you're like a lot of people who fall victim to the those foolish excuses, but even a little info and reasoning will show you that they're simply wrong! Please check more carefully on the issue and you should be able to see that it's just all excuses ..one excuse after another because no one knows why blacks commit violent crimes at higher rates. No one knows, so they invent silly hypotheses that have no basis in data or fact. Oh, they sound good, and people use that excuses all the time, but that don't make it correct.

Baron Max

Baron Max and madanthonywayne:


That's the best you can do? Give me a break. Selling cigarettes is not a crime. Any deaths caused by smoking are no more "crimes" than deaths caused by lack of exercise and overeating.

If you consider selling cigarretes a crime, you must also favor the war on drugs, Since selling these dangerous substances would be a "crime".

You have to break out of these simplistic analyses and look a little deeper. Yes, selling cigarettes is legal and has been for a long time. Selling the cigarettes is not the crime. The systematic misleading of the public about the health effects of smoking by cigarette companies is the crime.

See? You just need to think a little and stop being so superficial. Maybe it is because you're so superficial that you imagine that skin colour affects a person's propensity to be violent.

It's quite wearying having to try to educate you guys all the time. Turn on your brains and start thinking. Please.

Why don't you answer my questions about the causes of black crime, James?

But I find your silly analogy about cigs idiotic ....even with all the advertisement and lying, etc, no one forced anyone to suck smoke into their lungs! It was no crime, James, and you know it!

Baron Max

You have to break out of these simplistic analyses and look a little deeper. Yes, selling cigarettes is legal and has been for a long time. Selling the cigarettes is not the crime. The systematic misleading of the public about the health effects of smoking by cigarette companies is the crime.

See? You just need to think a little and stop being so superficial. Maybe it is because you're so superficial that you imagine that skin colour affects a person's propensity to be violent.

It's quite wearying having to try to educate you guys all the time. Turn on your brains and start thinking. Please.
James, your arguments would be more convincing without the insults. There is nothing superficial about holding people responsible for their actions. There have been warning labels on cigarettes since the sixties!

Any moron, even a conservative, knows that cigarettes are not good for you. Neither are crispy cremes, or promiscous sex, or driving fast, or staying up late, or smoking pot, or shooting heroin, or doing cocaine. But, in my opinion, all of these things should be legal. Adults should be allowed to weigh the risks and benefits of these things and decide what they want to do.

Am I to your left on this issue? Are you in favor of banning all substances that are potentially unhealthy?

Finally, there is no comparison between murder and selling someone something they want. To equate the two is intellectually dishonest, one might say, superficial.

Okay, fine ....there are also areas of the bigger cities where it's all or mostly all whites living in poor, white ghettos ...so can you show me any major, violent crimes in those areas that compare to the black ghettos?

Please point out a few of these, "poor, white ghettos", and I will look into them, so we can have some data instead of making suppositions.

Why don't you answer my questions about the causes of black crime, James?
why don't you answer my causes of black crime?


But I find your silly analogy about cigs idiotic ....even with all the advertisement and lying, etc, no one forced anyone to suck smoke into their lungs! It was no crime, James, and you know it!

Baron Max
you don't think drug addiction and exploitation of the innocent a crime baron?
nicotine is one of the most powerfull poisons known to man, of course the cigarette sellers won't tell you that though will they.
nicotine has addiction and relapse rates on a par with cocaine and heroin, but the cigarette sellers don't tell you that either do they?
but enough of the bullshit i want answers to my causes of black crime baron, i noticed you 'conveniently' skipped the issue.

To take one example, consider the sale of cigarettes.

I agree with you, but this isn't prehaps the thread to discuss it. Selling cigarettes is legal, but the way they are sold and marketted definitely immoral.

I once attended a meeting hosted at BAT (British American Tobacco) near Temple Tube in London. And yes, they offered us free cigarettes. I mumbled something to a colleague along the lines of 'I wonder if he passes any schools on the way home'.

Another immoral thing about tobacco companies such as BAT, is that they can choose to pay Corporation tax overseas, and they pay very little therefore. The Govt cuts them a break, because of all the revenue they get off them via VAT and Duty.

Anyway, this is a digression, maybe time to start another thread?

why don't you answer my causes of black crime?

I did answer it! I think your idea of "causes" for black crime is stupid, ignorant, invalid, dumb, worthless, racist, discriminatory bullshit. And that's just the good parts!!!!


you don't think drug addiction and exploitation of the innocent a crime baron?

Innocent? Who's "innocent"? I believe in the freedoms to do as we chose as long as it doesn't harm anyone else directly. What YOU are trying to do is legislate a form of morality. If someone is stupid enough to suck smoke into their lungs and get high or whatever, who are you to try to force them not to?

Exploitation? By whose definition? Yours?


but enough of the bullshit i want answers to my causes of black crime baron, i noticed you 'conveniently' skipped the issue.

See above! What I'd like you to do is to try out your "excuses" and see if they actually work for all people who have the same/similar "problems" as the blacks that you seem so intent defending. I.e., your "causes" must work for all people in all cultures in all nations or it can only be termed racist, and nothing but excuses for the horrid black behavior.

Baron Max

**Check out the following info and try to defend it/excuse it:

• Blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder, and eight times more likely to commit robbery.

• When blacks commit crimes of violence, they are nearly three times more likely than non-blacks to use a gun, and more than twice as likely to use a knife.

• Hispanics commit violent crimes at roughly three times the white rate, and Asians commit violent crimes at about one quarter the white rate.

• The single best indicator of violent crime levels in an area is the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic.

Interracial Crime

• Of the nearly 770,000 violent interracial crimes committed every year involving blacks and whites, blacks commit 85 percent and whites commit 15 percent.

• Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Forty-five percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and 10 percent are Hispanic. When whites commit violent crime, only three percent of their victims are black.

• Blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against a white than vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.

• Blacks are 2.25 times more likely to commit officially-designated hate crimes against whites than vice versa.

I think I've asked before, but if poverty and lack of education causes high rates of violent crime, then why aren't other non-black areas NOT listed as high crime areas? ....like Appalachian areas? ...like the southwest USA area? ...or the many predominately white, poor areas of the nation?

this is not an answer baron, not to the causes i listed.

**Check out the following info and try to defend it/excuse it:

• Blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder, and eight times more likely to commit robbery.

• When blacks commit crimes of violence, they are nearly three times more likely than non-blacks to use a gun, and more than twice as likely to use a knife.

• Hispanics commit violent crimes at roughly three times the white rate, and Asians commit violent crimes at about one quarter the white rate.

• The single best indicator of violent crime levels in an area is the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic.

Interracial Crime

• Of the nearly 770,000 violent interracial crimes committed every year involving blacks and whites, blacks commit 85 percent and whites commit 15 percent.

• Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Forty-five percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and 10 percent are Hispanic. When whites commit violent crime, only three percent of their victims are black.

• Blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against a white than vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.

• Blacks are 2.25 times more likely to commit officially-designated hate crimes against whites than vice versa.
try explaining this in terms of the causes i listed baron.
no, i am not defending black. but bigotry baron has no place when discussing this stuff and you know it.

every one of the points you raised can easily be explained by the causes i listed.

this is not an answer baron, not to the causes i listed.

Go find that post and copy them again, Leo ....I ain't gonna' search for your stupid, idiotic "causes" thru four pages of posts.

You claim that you can give "causes" for all those items on the list? Why don't you do so ......and remember, those "causes" must work on all races, not just on blacks!

Baron Max

jesus baron you aren't that stupid so quit acting like it.

ever hear of agitators, propaganda, or the want to divide our people, or blacks having a quality or talent that someone fears?

so tell me baron, what are the causes?
here you go baron, ask and ye shall recieve.

don't you think that any of the above causes can account for the statistics you mentioned?

you must also remember that if you are not black then you have no clue as to the black situation. and the shitty part is i don't know of any black posters that post regularly. gee i wonder what happened to them?

I guess they got fed up reading the same old same old shit

"ever hear of agitators, propaganda, or the want to divide our people, or blacks having a quality or talent that someone fears?"

don't you think that any of the above causes can account for the statistics you mentioned?

As I see it, those things could be and sometimes are "causes" for almost anything that could happen on the planet ...to all races, all cultures, all socio-economic systems.

But it does NOT explain why the rate of crime for blacks is so much higher than that of other races. So now, not only do you have to explain the high rate of violent crime in the black community, but you ALSO have to explain why the incidents of "agitators, propaganda, or the want to divide our people, or blacks having a quality or talent that someone fears" is so much higher in blacks than in other races!

You've dug yourself a nice deep hole, Leo, how you gonna' dig out of that one?

Baron Max

As I see it, those things could be and sometimes are "causes" for almost anything that could happen on the planet ...to all races, all cultures, all socio-economic systems.

But it does NOT explain why the rate of crime for blacks is so much higher than that of other races.
if you can't find anything wrong with this qoute of yours then you need to work on your logic.

edit
i listed what i believe to be the causes, now baron list yours.

if you can't find anything wrong with this qoute of yours then you need to work on your logic.

Leopold's Theory: "If X causes high rates of violent crime in blacks, and blacks are the same as non-blacks, then X also causes high rates of violent crime in all races."

Ahh, but wait ...there evidence of X being in non-black communities, but the high rate of violent crime is much less than in black communities.

Hmm, so perhaps, just perhaps, X is NOT the cause of the high rate of violent crime in the black communities. There must be some other factor(s) at work ...OR... blacks are affected differently by X.


i listed what i believe to be the causes, now baron list yours.

Well, I just proved your list to be incorrect and/or incomplete. As to my list of causes, I don't know ...ain't got the foggiest idea. But at least I'm not so stupid as to make assertions that are simply wrong just to keep my gums flapping in the wind!

Baron Max

As to my list of causes, I don't know ...
of course. likes to dig dirt and throw it in everybodys face.

and no baron you did not prove anything wrong.
wheres all the stats at that you like to throw around?
what? what's that baron? ah i see, you only throw them around when it comes to bashing black.
know something baron? forget it, you ain't worth any more of my time on this subject.

agh.

Please make a list of the "white ghettos" you mentioned earlier, so we can make a comparitive inquiry that might have some tiny significance.

But it does NOT explain why the rate of crime for blacks is so much higher than that of other races. So now, not only do you have to explain the high rate of violent crime in the black community, but you ALSO have to explain why the incidents of "agitators, propaganda, or the want to divide our people, or blacks having a quality or talent that someone fears" is so much higher in blacks than in other races!
Baron Max
Blacks commit more violent crime than other races. In the US, at least, this is indisputably true. Now, what about other nations? Are there worldwide statistics on crime by race? If it is true that blacks are more violent in every country; especially if the magnitude of the difference is as great as in the US, what would this indicate?

Your all dancing around the issue, but it would indicate that blacks are naturally more violent than other races. It is known that blacks are taller, have darker skin, and run faster {on average} than other races. Is it so inconcievable that there could be behavioral differences?

Now without cross-culteral data, it is possible that it is a software {or cultural} problem.

It is sad that we have become so PC that we can't even mention this as a possibility. Even if blacks are, on average, more violent; it doesn't mean all blacks are violent any more than all blacks can run a four minute mile.

Refusing to consider such a possibility when the data clearly suggests it is just as stupid as assuming all members of a certain race are too dumb to become doctors or lawyers.

Different characteristics are distributed on a bell curve among the human race. Different races have bell curves shifted in different directions for various traits.

Since "blacks" aren't a genetically meaningful classification, any differences in propensity to violence, if they exist at all, must be due to cultural or definitional reasons.

However, it is very clear that racists aren't interested in examining such explanations. They simply assume there are innate differences in behviour related to skin colour, with no evidence whatsoever.

Blacks commit more violent crime than other races. In the US, at least, this is indisputably true. Now, what about other nations? Are there worldwide statistics on crime by race? If it is true that blacks are more violent in every country; especially if the magnitude of the difference is as great as in the US, what would this indicate?

Your all dancing around the issue, but it would indicate that blacks are naturally more violent than other races. It is known that blacks are taller, have darker skin, and run faster {on average} than other races. Is it so inconcievable that there could be behavioral differences?

Now without cross-culteral data, it is possible that it is a software {or cultural} problem.

It is sad that we have become so PC that we can't even mention this as a possibility. Even if blacks are, on average, more violent; it doesn't mean all blacks are violent any more than all blacks can run a four minute mile.

Refusing to consider such a possibility when the data clearly suggests it is just as stupid as assuming all members of a certain race are too dumb to become doctors or lawyers.

Different characteristics are distributed on a bell curve among the human race. Different races have bell curves shifted in different directions for various traits.

i know this much, environment plays an important role in a persons behaviour.
you keep telling a person he's violent he will be.

are black naturaly more violent than other races? you have no evidence for that claim and therefor it's your opinion.

so, what can explain the stats you mentioned? every one of the points i raised earlier. but you won't even consider them will you? no. you're positive that blacks are naturally a violent race.

Since "blacks" aren't a genetically meaningful classification, any differences in propensity to violence, if they exist at all, must be due to cultural or definitional reasons.

However, it is very clear that racists aren't interested in examining such explanations. They simply assume there are innate differences in behviour related to skin colour, with no evidence whatsoever.
There is no such thing as race. Give me a freakin break. OK, let's say people of African descent. Damn PC bullshit.

Of course there is such a thing as race. And no one is postulating a relationship to skin color. Are Indians black? How about Mexicans? Skin color is just one characteristic common to those of African decent commonly refered to as "blacks".


you're positive that blacks are naturally a violent race.When did I say that? I said, we have to consider that as a possibility.

Well, please show us the scientific references that there are races.

When did I say that? I said, we have to consider that as a possibility.
yes you are correct, that's what you said. and it's the only cause you listed.

question for you:
what is it that leads you to that opinion?

you do realize that science has been unable to isolate a "violence gene" don't you? so with that in mind violence must be caused by environment.

Since "blacks" aren't a genetically meaningful classification,.....

It's so damned interesting to me that you can't tell the difference between black people and non-black people! That's amazing, James, truly amazing. I mean, almost everyone else on Earth can tell the differences almost immediately, including blind people with the sense of touch, yet you can't?! Amazing.


They simply assume there are innate differences in behviour related to skin colour, with no evidence whatsoever.

Skin color, broad noses, thick lips, heavy brow bone, thick lips, kinky, black hair, ....and a host of other such difference ....which you can't see????

Hey, James, can you tell the differences between blacks and orientals (or whatever the accepted term for yellow people is these days)?

Amazing,

Baron Max

you do realize that science has been unable to isolate a "violence gene" don't you? so with that in mind violence must be caused by environment.

If that's true, and there's no differences, then why aren't there more high rates of incidents of violence in predominately poor, uneducated white areas? Shouldn't the same environmental causes for high rates of violent crime show up in other areas of non-black folks?

If it is environmental causes, then perhaps you can prove/show that by listing the same high rates of violent crime in non-black areas as well?

And besides, just because science has not YET found a "violence gene" is not sign that there isn't one.

Baron Max

Since "blacks" aren't a genetically meaningful classification, any differences in propensity to violence, if they exist at all, must be due to cultural or definitional reasons.

However, it is very clear that racists aren't interested in examining such explanations. They simply assume there are innate differences in behviour related to skin colour, with no evidence whatsoever.

I'm extremely interested in examining such explanations. There seems to be as much resistance as anti-racists (not just non-racists, but actively not racist, if that makes sense) to examine such things.

I wonder if anyone's done any solid genetic work on this sort of thing. It seems like we finally have the tools to clear this issue up once and for all, but perhaps there's too much resistance in academia to do it. I am, of course, speaking out of my ass.

If that's true, and there's no differences, then why aren't there more high rates of incidents of violence in predominately poor, uneducated white areas?
i listed the causes baron that i believe to be responsible, twice, but you refuse to even consider them. why?

Shouldn't the same environmental causes for high rates of violent crime show up in other areas of non-black folks?
see the causes i listed, that can clear up the discrepancy


If it is environmental causes, then perhaps you can prove/show that by listing the same high rates of violent crime in non-black areas as well?
see above answer.


And besides, just because science has not YET found a "violence gene" is not sign that there isn't one.

Baron Max
and you speak of 'look at all the facts"
baron you absolutely refuse to consider any other cause other than genetic as to black crime.

you know what blacks problem is? i can sum it up in one word, white.

i dismiss genetics as a reason for black crime because:
1. science has been unable to isolate a 'violence gene".
2. science has been unable to explain race with genetics.

baron you absolutely refuse to consider any other cause other than genetic as to black crime.

That's not true, Leo, but while your list might sound good for explaining black violence, it doesn't work for explain the same for non-black cultures (regardless of what you say!).

Personally, I don't know what causes it ...but it's sure not your excuses. They simply don't work as they should, so I must consider them invalid.

Baron Max

you know what blacks problem is? i can sum it up in one word, white.

And yet the blacks are trying like hell to "integrate" with the whites? Does that make any fuckin' sense to you?

Baron Max

a question for you baron
if you wanted to make the black race look bad how would you do it?

a question for you baron ... if you wanted to make the black race look bad how would you do it?

Hmm, nothing, I guess. They seem to be doin' a pretty damned good job of it all by themselves, don't you think?

But lest you think I'm racist against blacks, the white race ain't doin' so fuckin' hot either!

If I wanted to make the Earth a better place, I'd get rid of all humans, all races of humans, and let the animals begin to enjoy their lives again.

Baron Max

....and let the animals begin to enjoy their lives again.

Until over time they evolve into morons again.

However, it is very clear that racists aren't interested in examining such explanations. They simply assume there are innate differences in behviour related to skin colour, with no evidence whatsoever."Skin colour" is not important, what is underneath the skin is what counts:

Evidence:
http://www.anthropogeny.com/Testosterone%20and%20Socioeconomic%20Differences%2 0in%20Mortality.htm

Evidence:
http://www.anthropogeny.com/Testosterone%20and%20Socioeconomic%20Differences%2 0in%20Mortality.htm
J.B. you're a frikken genius ! !

from the link:
Poor people have a death rate as much as three times higher than that of other groups.
"Free testosterone was measured in the saliva of 89 male prison inmates. Inmates with higher testosterone concentrations had more often been convicted of violent crimes.
It is known that black males produce significantly more testosterone than white males (J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 1986; 76: 45).

I'm extremely interested in examining such explanations. There seems to be as much resistance as anti-racists (not just non-racists, but actively not racist, if that makes sense) to examine such things.

I wonder if anyone's done any solid genetic work on this sort of thing. It seems like we finally have the tools to clear this issue up once and for all, but perhaps there's too much resistance in academia to do it.
Liberals hold, as an article of faith, that there is no such thing as race. To suggest otherwise, and to dare suggest that certain positive and negative characteristics might be distributed unevenly among the various races, is a thought crime.

i dismiss genetics as a reason for black crime because: 1. science has been unable to isolate a 'violence gene".
Really?

Recent research (Genetic Link to Violent Youth Behavior, Science 2 Aug. 2002) has strongly established a link between a gene, monoamine oxidase-A or MAOA, and violence. MAOA comes in a strong and a weak version. The study found that 85% of men with the weak version of the gene who had been abused as children exhibited criminal or antisocial behavior by the time they were adults. That is nine times the rate exhibited by those with the strong version of the gene who were abused as children. http://www.biologyoflaw.com/content/Applications/APC30.htm

i dismiss genetics as a reason for black crime because:
2. science has been unable to explain race with genetics.
Interestingly, it turns out one can easily identify blacks from their genes:

Within haplotype blocks, variations have been passed from generation to generation for tens of thousands of years without significant shuffling. Among Africans, each chapter runs about 11,000 letters long. European and Asian chapters comprise about 22,000 letters. Researchers don't yet know why there is a difference. But in all cases, haplotype blocks occur in no less than three or more than five patterns. http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2002/07.18/01-gene.html
I just came across a site with some great statistics on this issue, some highlights:

you can use the demographic information in the Statistical Abstract of the United States in conjunction with the FBI Uniform Crime Reports county level crime data to do a multiple regression of crime rate vs. ethnic composition. In this case our equation would be C = b_1 * B + b_2 * H + b_3 * W + b_4 * A + b_5 * N, where C= crime rate, b_1-5 = weights in the regression, and (B,H,W,A,N) = the fractional demographic breakdown in terms of blacks/Hispanics/whites/Asians/Native Americans, where B+H+W+A+N = 1. (more on multiple regression here)
I can do this analysis if anyone really doubts the outcome; it's basically going to show that the black/Hispanic percentage of a neighborhood is a strong predictor of the crime rate,
3. Last and perhaps most importantly, international comparisons reveal that demographics is terrifically important when it comes to violent crime. Consider:
1. Blacks in Britain: disproportionately involved in crimes, though guns are heavily restricted (see Tables 5.1-5.3 in the first link)
2. Blacks in the US: disproportionately involved in crimes, and guns are generally legal
3. Whites in Switzerland: Gun in every house, but very low crime rate (here for Switzerland Interpol data)
4. Whites in Britain: Not even the policemen have guns (rather, they used to abjure guns), and before the immigration of crime-prone groups Britain had low crime rates.

Though reliable statistics for many countries are hard to come by, the general international trend shows that ethnicity is a crucial determinant of crime rates. Democratic Pacific Rim countries like Japan and Hong Kong have the lowest rates of all, while black-ruled countries with reliable statistics (e.g. South Africa) have grotesquely high crime rates. http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/001234.html

your entire post is void of any relevance to this issue madanthony.

i have shown with thanks to JB that testosterone is responsible for high crime rates among blacks.
the above can be confirmed by the fact that men outrank women in every major crime statistic.

Well, if you make violence a crime then men are of course more prone to criminal behaviour. If you would make knitting a crime i predict we would see a crime wave happening in the female population.

madanthonywayne:


There is no such thing as race. Give me a freakin break.

I didn't say that. I can explain if you ask nicely.


OK, let's say people of African descent. Damn PC bullshit.

You are of African descent. We all are.


Of course there is such a thing as race. And no one is postulating a relationship to skin color. Are Indians black? How about Mexicans? Skin color is just one characteristic common to those of African decent commonly refered to as "blacks".

Are Egyptians black? Are Israelis black?

Baron Max:


It's so damned interesting to me that you can't tell the difference between black people and non-black people! That's amazing, James, truly amazing. I mean, almost everyone else on Earth can tell the differences almost immediately, including blind people with the sense of touch, yet you can't?! Amazing.

I can tell whether one person has lighter or darker skin than another. But that is unlikely to tell me anything of genetic significance, apart from whatever combination of genes happens to code for more melanin. Observing that a person has black skin has very week predictive power in terms of genetics. Socially, of course, it's a whole different ball game.


Skin color, broad noses, thick lips, heavy brow bone, thick lips, kinky, black hair, ....and a host of other such difference ....which you can't see????

You assume you can put people into boxes on the basis of their appearance, because you assume that superficial appearances correlate with complex innate characteristics such as intelligence and, yes, propensity to violence. But that's just a racist assumption, based on nothing.

But I'm repeating myself. You didn't understand the first time, so you probably won't get it this time, either.


Hey, James, can you tell the differences between blacks and orientals (or whatever the accepted term for yellow people is these days)?

I can say "gee! That guy has slightly slanty-looking eyes. Think I'll label him 'Oriental'." Will that tell me his IQ or his political affiliations or his propensity to violence?


Amazing

You said it.


If that's true, and there's no differences, then why aren't there more high rates of incidents of violence in predominately poor, uneducated white areas?

There are. Poor socioeconomic circumstances correlate to increases in violence.


Shouldn't the same environmental causes for high rates of violent crime show up in other areas of non-black folks?

Yes, and they do.


If it is environmental causes, then perhaps you can prove/show that by listing the same high rates of violent crime in non-black areas as well?

Let's step through it slowly.

What crime rates are you relying on? Who compiles those rates? What is recorded? Violence, or the outcomes of violence (arrests, convictions etc.)?

Now think.

...you assume that superficial appearances correlate with complex innate characteristics such as intelligence and, yes, propensity to violence. But that's just a racist assumption, based on nothing.

Statistics show that while blacks make up about 12% of the population in the USA, they commit over 50% of the violent crime. James, that's not FIRST looking at the race, THEN taking the stats!! It's actual fact in the USA. So if one sees a black man, he's more likely to commit violence than a white man. It's not racist, it's facts and statistics!


There are. Poor socioeconomic circumstances correlate to increases in violence.

So again, if one sees a black man in the USA, he's more likely to commit violence than a white man. It's not racist, it's facts and statistics! While socio-economics might play a role, it's still a pretty stupid person not to damned careful and cautious of a black man.

I'm still waiting for the statistics and the reasoning behind the socio-economic causes of violent crime ...if it's true, then it must also correlate to all races in similar conditions. Can you show evidence that it does? Can you show facts and data and statistics to prove it? Or does it only apply to the blacks??


What crime rates are you relying on? Who compiles those rates? What is recorded? Violence, or the outcomes of violence (arrests, convictions etc.)? Now think.

Don't have to think ....and I've told you a dozen times or so ...I've always used the stats as provided by the FBI on their websites. I've never, ever, relied on stats from racist websites.

Now I suppose you're going to tell me that the FBI is racist, therefore all their statistics is racist as welll? If so, perhaps it's you that has the problem, James!? Seeing only what you want to see or read so as to make the blacks look better than they are?

Baron Max

it's still a pretty stupid person not to damned careful and cautious of a black man.

is it possible to be objective when in fear?

oh my god ! ! a black man ! ! run for the hills ! !
if that isn't racist and bigoted i don't know what is baron. with an attitude like that you are incapable of objectivity.

is it possible to be objective when in fear?

oh my god ! ! a black man ! ! run for the hills ! !
if that isn't racist and bigoted i don't know what is baron. with an attitude like that you are incapable of objectivity.
Is it possible to be objective while liberal? To be objective, one must be open to every possibility. To look at the statistics, and reject out of hand that race could possibly play a role, is biased and certainly not objective.

You are of African descent. We all are.
Maybe

The fossil evidence against the Out of Africa theory comes from two skulls found in Georgia that are thought to be 1.7 million years old. If true they would be the oldest human remains found outside of Africa and would suggest that early humans moved from that continent hundreds of thousands of years earlier than previously acepted.http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~allpoms/genetics4.html

Are Egyptians black? Are Israelis black?
OK, Sub-Saharan Africa.

Is it possible to be objective while liberal? To be objective, one must be open to every possibility. To look at the statistics, and reject out of hand that race could possibly play a role, is biased and certainly not objective.
what? do you agree that testosterone plays a large part of black crime?

would you also agree that if someone wanted to make the black race look bad they can easily do it with agitators and propaganda?

what? do you agree that testosterone plays a large part of black crime?Would you? It certainly may be part of the reason. There's also this:

Recent research (Genetic Link to Violent Youth Behavior, Science 2 Aug. 2002) has strongly established a link between a gene, monoamine oxidase-A or MAOA, and violence. MAOA comes in a strong and a weak version. The study found that 85% of men with the weak version of the gene who had been abused as children exhibited criminal or antisocial behavior by the time they were adults. That is nine times the rate exhibited by those with the strong version of the gene who were abused as children. http://www.biologyoflaw.com/content...tions/APC30.htm
Now whether it's the MAO gene, excess testosterone, or whatever I don't know. But the evidence seems to suggest that Blacks are more prone to crime.

would you also agree that if someone wanted to make the black race look bad they can easily do it with agitators and propaganda?
Why would someone do that? And why do they do that in every country that blacks live in? Worldwide, the racial composition of an area is a strong predictor of the crime rate.

the link you gave for your MAO gene is broken.

anyway there is no reason to discount testosterone as a cause seeing as men outclass women in every crime catagory.

i didn't ask you if someone wanted to make black look bad i asked if you agree that they could.

the link you gave for your MAO gene is broken. Here's another one:

Studies show that people who were neglected, abused or mistreated as children and have an MAOA deficiency are more likely to participate in violent behavior as adults than:

- Those who have the gene and were brought up in stable, loving environments

AND

- Those who have 'normal' levels of MAOA and were mistreated as children.

The MAOA gene is found on the X Chromosome. Females have 2 X Chromosomes, and thus inherit 2 copies of the MAOA gene. Males, on the other hand, only have 1 X Chromosome, and thus only inherit 1 copy of the MAOA gene.

As a result, females are more likely to inherit at least one form of the high activity, or non-violent, type of the MAOA gene. Males have a higher chance of inheriting the low activity, violent, form because they only inherit one MAOA gene. They are thus more prone to exhibiting violent behavior.

Basically, one's environment affects the expression of the 'Violence Gene', MAOA. http://www.geocities.com/brildagniriel/Gene2
You'll notice it also addressed the issue of male/female violence levels. I still wouldn't necesarilly rule out testosterone as a contributer, though.


i didn't ask you if someone wanted to make black look bad i asked if you agree that they could.
I guess they could, but it would require a massive conspiracy. And to what end?

I still wouldn't necesarilly rule out testosterone as a contributer, though.
i wouldn't rule it out at all.

I guess they could, but it would require a massive conspiracy.
would it? most people would be surprised to know how few people rule the world

And to what end?
for the people that feel black is a threat, are somehow inferior, who are afraid of blacks, the list goes on and on.

i found the following interesting in regards to your MAO gene:
In the same way, violence must be initiated by a case of abuse before the cycle can be perpetuated. It is quite obvious that no matter what chemicals or genes are found to be related to violence, all cases start from the impact of a patient's surroundings.
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro04/web2/apatel.html

so, with a few agitators, a little propaganda, and a whole lot of racism we have ourselves a ready made recipe for disaster

Is it possible to be objective while liberal?
I hope you are smart enough to know what you are saying in this sentence about being conservative.

If your for affirmitive action or not, we all agree on one thing.

Blacks should be treated differently then other groups of humans.

Blacks should be treated differently then other groups of humans.
why?

If your for affirmitive action or not, we all agree on one thing. Blacks should be treated differently then other groups of humans.

Yeah, and even though they claim otherwise, they're posts lean heavily in that direction, don't they. But if you accuse them of racism, ooooh, geez, get out of the line of fire!!!

Baron Max

I have had the word 'Black' deleted from my post " Why do males shoot other males?"

Please could the moderator who did this give me a guide to when I can or can't use the word 'Black'?

I would like to point out that in light of being sensitive to the black population I chose to avoid entitling the thread 'Why do Blacks shoot other Blacks'.

I personally see on racist or negative use of the word 'Black' here in the title I chose, I was merely attempting to understand a Social issue that is prevalent within a certain demographic!

Surely the moderator who censored this post cannot claim that they aspire to think in a scientific manner?

Please could you make the rule on this forum clear in regard to the use of the word 'Black'.

Thank You
Let’s make a list of words that are inappropriate.

Then we can truly say we are free-thinkers.

Let’s make a list of words that are inappropriate.


1. LOL
2. IQ
3. bully (there are only victims!!)
4. intelligent
5. Ronnie ( i got a PM today stating I was not allowed to use the word 'Ronnie' as a name for He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named or You-Know-Who because He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named did not gave me permission to do so.

why?
Because blacks are different,
if we were all the same it would be a boring world.

1. LOL
2. IQ
3. bully (there are only victims!!)
4. intelligent
5. Ronnie ( i got a PM today stating I was not allowed to use the word 'Ronnie' as a name for He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named or You-Know-Who because He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named did not gave me permission to do so.

LOL!! what sort of bully with a low IQ wouldn't let you say Ronnie? How intelligent :rolleyes:


But I do like calling him You-Know-Who.

Because blacks are different,
if we were all the same it would be a boring world.
Well, granted, yes they are different. Everyone is different. There is no such thing as "normal" because every human differs from individual to individual. However, just because someone is different does not mean that they should not be treated as social and legal equals. To imply otherwise is falling into the folly that is racism.

Well, granted, yes they are different. Everyone is different. There is no such thing as "normal" because every human differs from individual to individual. However, just because someone is different does not mean that they should not be treated as social and legal equals. To imply otherwise is falling into the folly that is racism.

I thought everything within a sd of the mean was considered normal.

To be objective, one must be open to every possibility. To look at the statistics, and reject out of hand that race could possibly play a role, is biased and certainly not objective.

This is true until the conclusion has been reached that a particular possibility should be rejected.

Hypothetical: Leopold99 was once open to the possibility that race, in and of itself, plays a role in crime rates. But once he studied a bit, he realized that it couldn't be true given the available evidence.

I cannot say whether or not this is the case with leopold99, but if it is, then he is indeed being objective.

The question itself: "Why do blacks shoot other blacks?" is a racist inuendo, and does not categorize legitimate discussion.

The question itself: "Why do blacks shoot other blacks?" is a racist inuendo, and does not categorize legitimate discussion.

That's illogical.