Black Gangs Vented Hatred For Whites In Downtown Denver

Post Reply New Topic

thanks LKL

something that's been bugging me - surely, this is a question of gender violence, not racial?

also, this jumps out: "With the exception of simple assault, blacks experienced higher rates than whites for every violent crime measured
by the NCVS. Blacks also had higher rates than persons of other races (American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian, and other Pacific Islander) of overall violence and simple assault, and marginally higher rates of robbery and aggravated assault."

The link: Wikipedia. "Race and crime in the United States"

LINK



Well, you didn't say word by word that they are more likely to fall into poverty but that is what happens. You said "they are born into it". There you have it, they are more likely to fall into poverty.
The you say blacks in the US have been pretty bad since slavery. But there are blacks who made it out and are doing fantastic. Are these blacks the ones with the higher IQ? Could be, should be...

Why did Africa suffered the way it suffered?
Why didn't Asia suffered like Africa?
Why was and IS Africa so underdeveloped, filled with superstitious beliefs and violence?
Haiti suffers in similar ways.
There is something going on that deserves a little more time. You can't just say "race has nothing to do", call people racists and expect to answer complex issues.

Your example does not correspond to the outcome you are trying to imply.

Allow me to show you why not.

Statistics show that about 30 people die per year due to dog attacks and that 1 or less die due to grizzly bear attacks.
Does these statistics say that encountering a grizzly bear is less dangerous than encountering a dog?
No they don't. They just show how much people die from each animal.

The same happens with these rape statistics.
Meaning that if you do get raped and are a white female, it is more likely that it was a white offender, but if you encounter a black male or a white male at night it is a completely different issue, there are more changes that the black guy is a rapist because there are more black rape offenders than whites, even though there are less black males than white males. This mean the ratio for black rapists is way higher than for white rapists.

Does it make sense?
(For me it does)

I feel a face palm moment quickly approaching. I asked for a source not a sauce. Wikipedia is not a source. The link given as a reference for those figures takes me too.......the homepage of the DoJ's Statisitics Bureau. Again, Source for those numbers please.



I'm getting very close to insulting you, keep posting nonesense like this and i may feel it justified.



some african-americans have done well, only after the civil rights movementsagainst the racist laws designed to hold back african-Americans, particularly those movements around Malcolm X and Dr. Martin Luther King.



erm, try the colonialism of the British, French, Belgians and Portuguese for starters.



barring the slavery, it has - mabe you forgot about the Opium Wars with China, the British rule in India, the Vietnam War that list could continue.



again, centuries of colonial exploitation.



well, yes i can actually, i see no reason to consider race an important factor in these things nor have you given one.



you have yet to do anything to show those figures haven't been pulled out of the clear blue sky.

Asper-
don't just look at the total numbers. Look at the proportions. And read the links, for goodness' sake, before you claim that they don't contradict you!

Another book for Asper to read: Outliers, by Malcolm Gladwell.

Well, I looked at your link with the 2002 rape stats for N Carolina. Considering the second box, all other things being equal, the percentage of offenders of each race should reflect that of the population. But it seems that despite blacks only forming around 22% of the population of N Carolina they actually commit 31% of the rapes on whites. In the black victims box, the black offenders reaches a staggering 88%. Only 6% of offenders for black victims are white, despite whites making up 74% of the population.

...what I find staggering is that while there is all the furor and attempts to pin violence and aggression on race, there is relatively little regarding the remarkable statistics regarding the differences in gender and those who commit crimes. So basically, a country should only look a domestically-compatible females, correct?


M.

Dude, that's weak, you are threatening with insulting me.
What would you gain by insulting me? Have you thought about that?


Colonialism... And why couldn't Africans fight this off? Not enough technology? Why not?
It wasn't because they were unable to wage war, there were internal African conflicts before tyrants came to do businesses with Africans that profited from their own people.


The example I gave to LKL did not have improvised statistics.
Dogs do kill more people than grizzly bears.
Here are some stats for your amusement. You could have searched it yourself.
http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/danger.htm#homicides

The proportions show there are more black rapists than white rapists.(or are you going to say this is incorrect?)
If you can understand the statistics you can easily accept this.
Therefore, encountering a black man and a white man means there are more chances that the black man is a rapist.

That is not hard to understand.


Now if you actually were raped, and happen to be white, it means you most likely had a white male offender.
Having this in mind:
• Approximately 68% of rape victims knew their assailant.
• Approximately 28% of victims are raped by husbands or boyfriends, 35% by acquaintances, and 5% by other relatives.

This does not affect the fact that there are more rapists within blacks than whites.
That is what the stats show.



I keep repeating myself.
Please admit that the walking in the night example you gave is incorrect.

Last edited by ASPER on 13 Jan 2010, 11:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Yet you are making the assumption that their race has anything to do with it; just because there is a common factor doesn't not make it causal. If you look at those convicted of rape, the majority will be socio-economically disadvantaged. There are other factors which can be considered relatively common within that subgroup - does that mean each of those characteristics are as valid reasons for discrimination or divisive perception? In my opinion, it does not.


M.

Sorry, but I have to chime in here. Gould went out of his way to distort the truth in this book. As in, making claims about various 19th century researchers that are demonstrably false, failing to tell the whole story about IQ tests done on Jewish immigrants in the 1920s that he uses to "prove" nurture is more important than nature, etc. (The case in question was a group selected by researchers that they believed were border-line ret*d. And they had far lower IQs than other groups of American Jews done later. Gould never bothers to mention that it was a selected group in the first case vs. a random sampling the others.)

And even more bizarrely updated NONE of the science from the 1981 to 1996 editions, just added quite a bit more pontification. Quite frankly I suspect he didn't like what he was hearing about brain research coming to light at that time.

I'm not crazy about Stephen Pinker's what almost amounts to biological determinism, but Pinker was justified in his criticisms of Gould, as best I can tell. Though, curiously, there does seem to be something of swing away from Pinker's brand of thinking lately, so maybe Gould did have it right after all.

But Gould's methods were not those of a scientist in Mismeasure but of someone pushing an agenda while masquerading as one. In that sense the book is crap, pure and simple.

I've said already that I am not sure how much does race has to do with this.
I'm not saying race is the main cause.

And we've have talked about socio-economic factors.
I've asked, why do these socio-economically disadvantaged groups find themselves in them in the first place.

A desire for the preservation of resources, exhibited in the primitive form of differentiation equating to a threat? Thus a growing and greater divide between the haves and havenots. Varying forms of self-identification can be found in tribal distinctions, the furors over immigration from Italy and Ireland as only two major examples, building gangs based on regional controls. It's an easy cause to wrap people's undirected anger around that allows them to be manipulated into unpleasant behaviors. If there were a society where the dominant and wealthy individuals were of a darker complexion while there was a vocal minority of poor and pale individuals, which do you think would be found to be the greater instance of violence and abuse? My impression is that people, as a whole, seek to find ways to differentiate themselves from others, to define themselves in terms of superiority instead of terms of ability, which leads to racism, religious battles, and class warfare.


M.

Which sort of contradicts the position that whites don't rape blacks at all, which has previously been claimed on this thread, and also contradicts the claim that I'm more in danger from a black man than a white man.

And, think about it: It's been shown that juries are more likely to convict a theoretical black rapist of a white woman than a theoretical white rapist of a black woman, given the same set of circumstances. Those numbers are probably a little weak.

*snort*
good point.

I heard of a highly gender-segregated tribe somewhere over in the pacific where the women got tired of how violent the men were, all of the inter-tribal wars and such, and started killing the majority of their male offspring. It worked.