Racial controversy

[gsmoove23]

If your goading me it hasn't worked yet. I never said I am not equiped with a good amount of factual evidence to refute differences between races but I could hardly be intelligent enough to "prove" anything to anyone, including myself. There is very little in life that I can really "prove" but I do "know" quite a few things and I have a lot of little "facts" to back up the things I "know". Do you see where I'm coming from yet? Enough "" for ya?

I am not afraid to admit that many of my beliefs on race are backed up with moral arguement. That does not mean I have no factual information to back it up and yes I know it does not come from hate which is why you haven't goaded me to start ranting yet

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by MikeH


No, it only proves that they are more likely to be arrested for being a violent criminal. Nothing more.

Which might just mean that the police are just more likely to catch them. Which wouldn't be surprising giving the link Boddies posted.

Here in the US the Department of Justice did a survey of 100,000 victims of violent crime. The proportion of races named by those surveyed matches the arrest rate very closely. Doesnt this show that (in the US at least) police racism is not a significant factor in the arrest rate of minorities?

Also it ignores the strong links between income and social situation and in most western nations the ethnic minorities have lower living standards and incomes than the majority.

Even so, if police racism is eliminated as a factor (above) it would still be correct to say that race X commits more violent crime wouldn't it?

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
If your goading me it hasn't worked yet. I never said I am not equiped with a good amount of factual evidence to refute differences between races but I could hardly be intelligent enough to "prove" anything to anyone, including myself. There is very little in life that I can really "prove" but I do "know" quite a few things and I have a lot of little "facts" to back up the things I "know". Do you see where I'm coming from yet? Enough "" for ya?

I'm not trying to goad you. Actually I appreciate your calm discussion of this matter.

I am not afraid to admit that many of my beliefs on race are backed up with moral arguement. That does not mean I have no factual information to back it up and yes I know it does not come from hate which is why you haven't goaded me to start ranting yet

There are facts that support both sides, so why would you rant at the person that "continued to argue a purely racial reasoning"? Wouldn't that be assuming that they believe what they do because of hatred?

[gsmoove23]

I'm confused at how that eliminates police racism as a factor in the arrest of minorities.

I should say I agree that today in America minorities commit proportionally more violent crimes. The question shouldn't be whether this is true but what this means and what the reasons are, no?

[Jac de Molay]

Even so, if police racism is eliminated as a factor (above) it would be correct to say that race X commits more violent crime wouldn't it?

There are many, many controlling factors that you aren't taking into account or conveniently side-stepping, like socio-economic situation, cultural influence, and upbringing. Would your line of reasoning similarly suggest that white people are disproportinately responsible for white collar crimes because they're white?

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
I'm confused at how that eliminates police racism as a factor in the arrest of minorities.

Because the victims surveyed did not select their attacker by race. So if the arrest rates correlate, then that means the police do not arrest by race.

I should say I agree that today in America minorities commit proportionally more violent crimes. The question shouldn't be whether this is true but what this means and what the reasons are, no?

I agree, but someone who points it out should not be accused of racism simply for doing so.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Caligastia
There are facts that support both sides, so why would you rant at the person that "continued to argue a purely racial reasoning"? Wouldn't that be assuming that they believe what they do because of hatred?

I would rephrase this to "facts." No, it would be having a very strong belief and being startled everytime someone disagrees with something that seems so obvious to me. Please don't respond to this comment I fully recognize its limitations and would challenge anyone who didn't have the same feelings on some issue or another.

[MikeH]

Even so, if police racism is eliminated as a factor (above) it would still be correct to say that race X commits more violent crime wouldn't it?

You aren't following me. The problem is that statement implies that the reason they commit more crime is purely racial.

You can also prove with statistics that more violent crime is comitted by poor people. Why not make the statement that "more crime is committed by low income groups" and then have the focus on improving standards for those groups rather than imposing on society an idea that minorities are more likely to be criminals.

By your argument it would also be factually correct for me to say that in the UK or US white males are more likely to commit fraud than other races. Does this mean that the tax departments should inspect the accounts of companies with white accountants more thoroughly than those that employ black accountants?

Would it be OK for a police chief to say that publically and give the impression that the white males are generally corrupt?

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by DetroitDave


There are many, many controlling factors that you aren't taking into account or conveniently side-stepping, like socio-economic situation, cultural influence, and upbringing. Would your line of reasoning similarly suggest that white people are disproportinately responsible for white collar crimes because they're white?

Well, just as minorities are more likely to be in an environment that fosters violence, so are whites more likely to be in an environment where white collar crime is possible.

[Jac de Molay]

Well, just as minorities are more likely to be in an environment that fosters violence, so are whites more likely to be in an environment where white collar crime is possible.

Right, "environment". Which means that saying race x is more likely to commit x crime is completely irrelevant.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Caligastia

I agree, but someone who points it out should not be accused of racism simply for doing so.

I agree with this statement, sure. Other, earlier posts are more sinister though, at least in my eyes. Using the statement minorities are arrested for more crimes as an explanation to argue a genetic difference is another story. It is awfully reductionist and I would call it racist.

These are 2 definitions I've found on dictionary.com
1.The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2.Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

Perhaps the question should be is the word racism necessarily evil. YES! IMHO

[Solly]

MikeH/liberals

Is it sexist to say men commit more crime than women?

[gsmoove23]

No but it is sexist to have policeman single out random men with the assumption that they have a higher chance in catching them in the act of doing something illegal.

[Japher]

This is a very old debate...

Inborn traits vs. Society Influenced traits

First, I want to point out the believing that a specific race or ethnicity is more likely to commit a crime or act in a certian way is not racist... it's prejudice. And, yes, there is a difference.

My View:

There are no inbron traits that are reflective on behavior, excluding mental diseases. People are born ignorant of proper and inproper behavior, it is something that is taught. In the beginning we (all races) are all the same, mentally. Physically? That's another debate.

As we grow we are taught by the society in which we are forced to live, and in some cases chose to live, about what is "right" and "wrong". This determines the behavior of an individual more than any type of "instinct".

Thus, my opinion is that as long as ppl of a specific race chose to live only amongst those of that race than racial profiling and prejudisms will be, for the most part, true. Does anyone disagree?

Had I been raised amongst the neo-nazi's I am sure I would behave differently than had I been raised in Detroit by a Batist Missionary. My behavior would not necessarily be reflected by the color of my skin, but more along the way I talk, dress, walk, and those I "hang" with.

Racial Profiling is a justifiable condition in that most ppl of specific race and social stature tend to "hang" with each other and tend to share the same views and behaviors.

[Solly]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
No but it is sexist to have policeman single out random men with the assumption that they have a higher chance in catching them in the act of doing something illegal.

Why?

Marketers target the people they think are more likely to buy their product...nothing wrong with that. Just like there's nothing wrong with police targetting people (men, minorities) who are more likely to commit crimes.