Does poverty cause crime?

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp


Well boo-hoo. Your move from a predominantly white area to a diverse area exactly mirrors my own. Only one of us is looking for racial stereotypes, however.

I've got this terrible affliction. I'm a practical and pragmatic sort of bloke, and I form my opinions on people based on their actions. Your history sucks, and you aren't moving away from it.

What goes on between your ears is entirely your own business, but once it gets on an internet board, be prepared to have people's opinions of you coloured by them.

Oh well. Nobody here really knows me anyway so whatever opinion they form is inherently ignorant.

I don't look for racial stereotypes BTW, I just call it like I see it. Certain opinions of mine would offend white supremicists just as much as the ones I've expressed here offend you. For example I think race mixing is a good thing biologically, and that whites are one of the most mixed races of all.

You're not interested in any of that though. You'd rather go on a moral crusade against what you perceive as "evil". Sorry, but as much as I'd like to believe the feel-good fairy tale that we are all the same under our skin, I just can't.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp


Actually, my stance is that I've never seen crime stats that I couldn't expose as flawed, incomplete or skewed. I'm perfectly happy to be put to the test again.

Your stance, as a self-proclaimed scientist, is to provide conclusive proof which is not flawed or skewed. Go to it, because you're heading for a "F".

I don't see you providing any proof for your "racial equality" theory either, so you also receive an "F".

[Caligastia]

I've already explained to you why I still treat people as individuals, but you're not interested in that are you Laz? Nope, you'd rather attack me because I choose not to believe as you do. You have zero evidence for your position, yet somehow my supposed lack of evidence is a failing on my part. Put simply, you're a frothing ideologue.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
They are. They get their career on the streets, pimp. *snaps fingers*

Need some time off to do other things, Stewie?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Caligastia


Oh well. Nobody here really knows me anyway so whatever opinion they form is inherently ignorant.

I don't look for racial stereotypes BTW, I just call it like I see it. Certain opinions of mine would offend white supremicists just as much as the ones I've expressed here offend you. For example I think race mixing is a good thing biologically, and that whites are one of the most mixed races of all.

You're not interested in any of that though. You'd rather go on a moral crusade against what you perceive as "evil". Sorry, but as much as I'd like to believe the feel-good fairy tale that we are all the same under our skin, I just can't.

It seems to me that you always attribute differences to "race" as opposed to popular cultural or social influences. Go up to Boston, and tell me if you see any behavioral or other differences between back bay and Beacon Hill WASPs and Townie or Southie micks?

I've known quite a lot of people from Africa, and they have as little in common with American blacks as with white Americans. Same thing living on both sides of the US-Mexico border, and seeing how Mexican-Americans mostly stick out like sore thumbs in Mexico, just about as badly as gringo turistas. You can go back a ways before a lot of ethnic neighborhoods in the US intermixed to the extent they now have, and find a great deal of differences (and similar prejudices) regarding wops and polacks and hunkies and krauts and micks, etc. etc. Back before there were "colored" people in American urban neighborhoods to notice, there was plenty of the same sort of stereotyping and labelling of behavior in all "white" areas. You just had to listen to the language or accent or know the neighborhood, rather than look at skin color.

You observe different behaviors and social mores and attribute them to some fundamental difference that happens to relate to the melanin content in someone's skin. Unfortunately, for that theory, there's no identifiable anatomic or functional differences in brains between so-called "races" of humans, so if you want to explain behavior, you're barking up the wrong tree.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Not sure I follow your logic here- are you suggesting that convenience is a justification for prejudice?

No! You don't say "this individual is X race, therefore this individual has such-and-such quality". You say "individuals of this race are more likely to have such-and-such quality".

[Japher]

You observe different behaviors and social mores and attribute them to some fundamental difference that happens to relate to the melanin content in someone's skin. Unfortunately, for that theory, there's no identifiable anatomic or functional differences in brains between so-called "races" of humans, so if you want to explain behavior, you're barking up the wrong tree.

I reminded of the movie "The Jerk"... "I'm not Black!"

However, while you are right in many aspects, you ignore the fact that birds of feather do flock together. I don't know about Cali, but I associate behavior and social norms to the society in which one lives. Most of these societies are not as diverse as some of ours, and ARE associated with the melanin content of their skin, or nationality. So, indirectly, behavior prejudices based on skin color is totaly justifiable.

It's why we have Ghettos, Chinatowns, Little Italies, etc... and, it is why it is so funny that Tiger Woods is good at golf.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
OK, I understand now.

People discriminate based on race.

This discrimination INFLUENCES the race discriminated.

Therefore, we must continue to discriminate.

Thanks for clearing that up.

I never stated there was some sort of obligation to discriminate there, just that in certain circumstances it is perfectly valid (in the sense that it is ACTUALLY TRUE) to make the statement that "because so-and-so is a member of group X, so-and-so is more likely to have such-and-such quality."

Are you saying it is somehow wrong to say something that is true?

No one is claiming that certain races are inherently inferior, they're claiming that certain races, due to culture, average socioeconomic status, etc. perform various crimes in different proportions.

They're not INHERENTLY inferior, but due to culture, commit more crime.

Yup. The genes for extra melotonin, or whatever it's called, in your skin certainly has no effect on anything else.

However, are you claiming that statistically, black are indistinguishable from white people? That's why we've had several black presidents?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Caligastia
I've already explained to you why I still treat people as individuals, but you're not interested in that are you Laz? Nope, you'd rather attack me because I choose not to believe as you do. You have zero evidence for your position, yet somehow my supposed lack of evidence is a failing on my part. Put simply, you're a frothing ideologue.

That's because I take my position- treating people as individuals without prejudice- as a default. It's as pure and simple as it gets. As far as I can see, anything else requires clarification and justification.

If you disagree, and feel the default position is prejudice (or, as you would put it, scientific proof of increased propensity to commit crime) then which groups do you need to apply it against, and why? Instantly, your position requires clarification. Mine doesn't.

And you're a racist. Let's bask in our respective labels and see who feels more comfortable, shall we?

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp


That's because I take my position- treating people as individuals without prejudice- as a default. It's as pure and simple as it gets. As far as I can see, anything else requires clarification and justification.

If you disagree,

I don't disagree with your position of treating people as individuals without prejudice, I disagree with what you base that position on - the belief that all races are equal in any significant respect. That belief is what requires clarification and justification.

The bottom line is that I am able to treat people as individuals without having to believe their racial group is the same as mine in all significant aspects. You, however, require a foundational belief in racial equality (in significant aspects) before you can do this.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Kucinich

People discriminate based on race.

However, are you claiming that statistically, black are indistinguishable from white people? That's why we've had several black presidents?

There was I thinking that the history of the slave trade, the American Civil War, British colonial history, 'scientific racism' and the lingering discontents after the American Civil War, had rather more to do with why the United States hasn't had black presidents- not the 'inherent' qualities, good or bad, of melatonin.

Gee, you haven't had any women presidents either.

Must be because women are inherently inferior to men.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Japher

It's why we have Ghettos, Chinatowns, Little Italies, etc... and, it is why it is so funny that Tiger Woods is good at golf.

Well, actually, the reasons we historically have had ghettos, Chinatowns and Little Italies is that if some uppity ******, chink or wop decided to move into a white neighborhood, the good God-fearing Christian white folk of that neighborhood would generally tend to say or do something about it, and even if they didn't technically have the law on their side, they'd most often have law enforcement on their side, or at the least, looking the other way.

The majority indirectly and sometimes directly enforced the creation of those neighborhoods, by violence, by restrictive covenants on real estate sales, and by economic and social isolation. This happened historically in many US cities even outside of "race" unless you think the Irish are colored, too.

As far as Tiger goes, and Lee Elder before him, when things really were tough on the tour, the difference is we start letting 'em come in the front of the clubhouse and let 'em swing clubs, as opposed to having 'em come in the back of the clubhouse and carry clubs.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


It seems to me that you always attribute differences to "race" as opposed to popular cultural or social influences. Go up to Boston, and tell me if you see any behavioral or other differences between back bay and Beacon Hill WASPs and Townie or Southie micks?

I've known quite a lot of people from Africa, and they have as little in common with American blacks as with white Americans. Same thing living on both sides of the US-Mexico border, and seeing how Mexican-Americans mostly stick out like sore thumbs in Mexico, just about as badly as gringo turistas. You can go back a ways before a lot of ethnic neighborhoods in the US intermixed to the extent they now have, and find a great deal of differences (and similar prejudices) regarding wops and polacks and hunkies and krauts and micks, etc. etc. Back before there were "colored" people in American urban neighborhoods to notice, there was plenty of the same sort of stereotyping and labelling of behavior in all "white" areas. You just had to listen to the language or accent or know the neighborhood, rather than look at skin color.

I don't think it's accurate to say I always attribute differences to race. I just think it's one of many factors. Other than that, everything you've said so far I agree with.

You observe different behaviors and social mores and attribute them to some fundamental difference that happens to relate to the melanin content in someone's skin. Unfortunately, for that theory, there's no identifiable anatomic or functional differences in brains between so-called "races" of humans, so if you want to explain behavior, you're barking up the wrong tree.

Again, I would never try to explain human behaviour purely with race. I just don't think environment explains everything. A human baby is not a "blank slate".

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Caligastia

The bottom line is that I am able to treat people as individuals without having to believe their racial group is the same as mine in all significant aspects. You, however, require a foundational belief in racial equality (in significant aspects) before you can do this.

No I don't. Go back and read my posts again.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Japher
Lifetime chances of a person going to prison are higher for
-- men (11.3%) than for women (1.8%)
-- blacks (18.6%) and Hispanics (10%) than for whites (3.4%)
If your a black male your screwed.

Let's ignore all the other factors that contribute to crime and assume these numbers are valid (a big assumption).

The vast majority (81%) of black American men will likely never commit a crime and go to jail.

Yet people like you say black men are screwed?

White folks look at blacks and think "criminal".

People say black culture creates criminals, and yet the majority of blacks will not commit a crime.

We got people saying they treat everyone as individuals and then they turn around and say them blacks can't be trusted.

Seems to me the problem isn't black people, but how others perceive them.