Spink in Race Row

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Many methods of categorisation are arbitrary, but that doesn't make them meaningless. Where do "young" or "old" begin and end? The concept of "age" is still meaningful.

The age of a person is a specific number, not a nebulous term. The terms "young" and "old" are nebulously defined, and so not used to describe categorizations for actual use. You can get your driver's liscence at 16 in most states, you can buy cigarettes and vote at 18, and you can buy alcohol at 21. They all would qualify as "kinda young" to me. We use specific numbers because they are actually useful. If we said "kinda young" to describe when you can get your diver's liscence, buy cigarettes, vote, and buy alcohol, it would mean different things to different people, and not be a useful distinction at all.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Caligastia
70% white is what you consider a 'black area'? And you wonder why I call you naive.

It was you who set the marker at 80%, Cal.

You blame everything on white prejudice - the non-whites are blameless in your eyes. You are a bigot, plain and simple.

This is great. I think we've just seen the biggest strawman ever submitted in a Poly thread. Would you like to try coming back to this thread when you're less hysterical?

It's a great piece of thinking. Opposition to prejudice on racial grounds = hatred of whites, it seems. I'm not going going to bother poking holes in it because it's frankly not worth bothering with. The only people who buy into arguments like that are those who can't walk without their knuckles dragging.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Are there any problems of blacks that you don't believe whites cause Laz?

Of course. Incidentally, the gravitational pull from the size of your strawman is affecting the orbit of the moon.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Here they are again, Cal.

1- You have no idea how many crimes are committed.

2- You don't know who's committing most of them.

3- You have no means of satisfactorily eliminating skewing factors in the very long and vulnerable series of stages that lead to conviction.

4- You cannot distinguish "genetic factors" from environmental ones.

Come on! Don't give up so easily!

[MikeH]

Is there any way to say that using shorter words Laz? I don't think he understands that post.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Aeson


Tell us Caligastia, what exactly are these "primary colours" of race...

Should we consider people with a certain hair color a "race"? How about eye color? Height? Genetic tendancies towards [various conditions]? Or are you sticking the the tried and true foundation of racism... skin color?

You didn't bother to read my post properly, so why should I bother with a proper response?

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp



It was you who set the marker at 80%, Cal.



This is great. I think we've just seen the biggest strawman ever submitted in a Poly thread. Would you like to try coming back to this thread when you're less hysterical?

It's a great piece of thinking. Opposition to prejudice on racial grounds = hatred of whites, it seems. I'm not going going to bother poking holes in it because it's frankly not worth bothering with. The only people who buy into arguments like that are those who can't walk without their knuckles dragging.

I can just imagine you, a pale, naive little Englishman, walking through the streets of Irvington or Newark at night, reapeating to yourself "There's no crime here! Statistics on crime are meaningless!".

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Here they are again, Cal.

1- You have no idea how many crimes are committed.

2- You don't know who's committing most of them.

3- You have no means of satisfactorily eliminating skewing factors in the very long and vulnerable series of stages that lead to conviction.

4- You cannot distinguish "genetic factors" from environmental ones.

Come on! Don't give up so easily!

It's rather amusing to watch you do this. You assign your position as the default, and celebrate in your "victory" at being able to point out that crime statistics are less than perfect. Only someone who has never seen a neighborhood that is 70, 80, or 90% black would delude himself into thinking that those areas don't have a crime problem. It shows your bigotry.

To address point #4, if genetic factors cannot be distinguished from environmental ones, how can you be so sure environment is 100% responsible? Oh, that's right, it's the default. You "win" again.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by MikeH
Is there any way to say that using shorter words Laz? I don't think he understands that post.

Did your ego get the boost it needed?

[MikeH]

You seem to be being deliberately obtuse.

He didn't say that some areas with high black populations don't have crime problems.

He said you can't use crime figures to prove that someones race/genetic makeup makes them more likely to be a criminal. And if you read his post, he gives the very logical reasons why not.

So, if you choose to interpret crime stats as meaning that more blacks are convicted and/incarcerated is down to some genetic factor that means they are more likely to be criminals, that's up to you, but you are choosing race as the factor rather than an societal, environmental or other factors, hence, it's a racist choice on your part, because no-one can prove it either way.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by MikeH
You seem to be being deliberately obtuse.

He didn't say that some areas with high black populations don't have crime problems.

The vast majority of areas with high black populations have crime problems. Why is that? Blaming it all on white racism has not led to any solutions. It has made the problem worse by removing any responsibility from blacks. And Laz won't even admit there is a problem!

He said you can't use crime figures to prove that someones race/genetic makeup makes them more likely to be a criminal. And if you read his post, he gives the very logical reasons why not.

So, if you choose to interpret crime stats as meaning that more blacks are convicted and/incarcerated is down to some genetic factor that means they are more likely to be criminals, that's up to you, but you are choosing race as the factor rather than an societal, environmental or other factors, hence, it's a racist choice on your part, because no-one can prove it either way.

No, I'm saying that both are likely a factor. I can't prove it absolutely, but it makes more sense than blaming it on 100% environment. And if it can't be proven either way you have to look at the logical conclusions of what you believe. Because I suspect genes are a factor, I don't expect a fair and equitable environment to result in equal outcomes for all groups. So I reject racial preferences and other policies that try to "correct" the "inequality", and support policies that treat everyone as an individual. The belief that all groups are "the same under the skin" leads to racial preferences and bigotry against successful groups.

[MikeH]

but it makes more sense than blaming it on 100% environment

Why?

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by MikeH


Why?

Because the same problems arise in a wide variety of environments.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Caligastia
It's rather amusing to watch you do this. You assign your position as the default, and celebrate in your "victory" at being able to point out that crime statistics are less than perfect.

False. Crime stats are perfect when they're used correctly. It's when morons try stretching them beyond their alloted field that you get problems. I choose not to be a moron, but if you're desperate to force your way into that particular grouping then I wish you well with it.

Only someone who has never seen a neighborhood that is 70, 80, or 90% black would delude himself into thinking that those areas don't have a crime problem.

Just about all poor areas have crime problems. Most predominantly black areas are poor. Such crime is a social problem, not some sort of marker of a "Negro Crime Gene".

It shows your bigotry.

There we go again. How dare ol' Laz argue against the notion of those poor blacks carrying genetic criminality, right?

To address point #4, if genetic factors cannot be distinguished from environmental ones, how can you be so sure environment is 100% responsible? Oh, that's right, it's the default. You "win" again.

Go find the gene, Cal. Go find the gene. Until then you're just pissing in the wind.

[MikeH]

For instance?

What'd be really useful to support your point would be an example of a country with a huge rich/poor divide where the black population is the rich, well educated majority who run the country, whites are the much poorer, ill educated minority and where the crime rate shows that a higher proportion of blacks commit crime than whites.