Black People and Crime

[SpheresOfBalance]

Addendum:

As to the, "Genetics of aggression:" "Genetic-developmental theory states that individual differences in a continuous phenotype result from the action of a large number of genes, each exerting an effect that works with environmental factors to produce the trait."
--Tremblay, Richard E., Hartup, Willard W. and Archer, John (eds.) (2005). Developmental Origins of Aggression. New York: The Guilford Press. ISBN 1-59385-110-3.--

Hey I wonder if Poverty would qualify as an environmental factor???


Hmmmmm I Wonder????

[SpheresOfBalance]

You are perpetuating a victim mentality that sets up the world that you hate. Your mentality divides people...

Are you insane? It's your position that sets up black victims. I've never said I condone violence, quite the contrary. I'm just saying, if you'd pay attention, that logically, I understand where it comes from. Not that it's necessarily justified.

Anything to do with this topic of 'blacks and crime' is case by case, such that, only a fool of a bigot, see's it as across the board.

[bus2bondi]

to me, it has just been 'common sense'. (not saying i have any, but anyhow, in regards to this anyway racism is pure bullshit) however i do understand that there are still those out there, even if things are alot better now, that still hold onto racist beliefs.

they do not know any better, i guess just as i cannot comprehend many other things for example.. so maybe its helpful for those who don't have the comprehension for a variety of possible reasons to look at it scientifically then.. there is a quote from a researcher (i apologize for the fact that i can't remember the researchers name.) that said once that there is 'no race, only tiny infinite miniscule racializations'..

in relation to poverty, crime, and skin color.. alot of indepth research has been done, and there are alot of very eye opening writings that could possibly be taken into consideration by anyone that might want to.

i am kicking myself for not saving any of this. one might have been Howard Zinn. i could be wrong about that.

anyhow, something to check into if someone feels to, is something called 'Redlining'.

if i'm remembering correctly, it is something government officials did around the United States to non-whites in relation to 'city planning'.

along with that i think something about it had something to do with locating toxic industrial plants, etc.. in those specific areas as well.

Wynona LaDuke told me once that one of the battles she is fighting in Washington has to do with this.

[bus2bondi]

something to consider might be... 'invisible crime', which interestingly enough relates to the 'invisible whiteness of skin' and power.

there are some very powerful and intricate writings and videos on this as well, and again i'm kicking myself for not saving them, and not remembering them.

a few are 'Confessions of an Economic Hitman', 'Lumumba', 'Boomerang', and so many more.

[bus2bondi]

i remember something else that Wynona told me. she was also trying to get a picture hung up of a great Native American along with the other pictures hanging up at i think it was the White House or in one of the other important historical buildings of our time. i think it was either Crazy Horse or Geronimo. i am not exactly sure. what i do remember is that it was denied.

why?

[artisticsolution]

Addendum:

As to the, "Genetics of aggression:" "Genetic-developmental theory states that individual differences in a continuous phenotype result from the action of a large number of genes, each exerting an effect that works with environmental factors to produce the trait."
--Tremblay, Richard E., Hartup, Willard W. and Archer, John (eds.) (2005). Developmental Origins of Aggression. New York: The Guilford Press. ISBN 1-59385-110-3.--

sob:Hey I wonder if Poverty would qualify as an environmental factor???

AS: I never said it didn't at all...I simply said these are not "facts". Obviously this quote says It "works with" environmental factors and to produce the trait. It still doesn't answer why there are many more people in "poverty" who do not turn to acts of aggression or crime.

But maybe you could answer me this....I know you think I was talking about the gene that produces skin color...but I was not I never said that. I was talking about something deeper. I watched this show once where all these famous people (of all ethnic groups) were taking a dna test to see what there genetic background was. I remember there being a black woman who was a black history professor at a prestigious college taking the test. She was very surprised to learn that the test came back that she was 70% european and 30% african. She thought she was mostly african. There was other tests as well....I think it was eva mendes who thought she was of mexican decent but it turned out she had zero mexican in her and was all european or something like that. I don't remember the exact figures.

Just because someone has dark skin doesn't make me think they are african or from poverty or aggressive ....I know what you are saying about skin color is true. What I am not understanding how you can think aggression is linked to poverty when there are just as many aggressive elitists (as you yourself said when you said that is how they got there in the first place). So how exactly is it that you see a link between poverty and aggression or crime? How do you account for the people in poverty who do not turn to crime?

Also, this is another thing I don't understand. As you say, we came from a single orgin. Did animals also come from a single orgin too? Because I would like to discuss dog breeds. What confuses me is how we can say that such and such dog is bred for this or that...whether it is hunting, or being gentle or whatever. Did animals evolve under a different set of rules? If not...then why is it that we can see a difference in certain breeds but not in humans?

I know to you my questions seems lame. But that sounds pretty mean to me and discriminatory if in fact I have not learned these things before...and esp. if you think I am a moron not as intelligent as you are. Is this the way you treat others who are less fortunate than yourself? You ridicule them? If you noticed, I did not ridicule you for not knowing the jargon of artists. To me it is common knowledge because that is all I cared to learn as a child. But I understand that others have other interests. I would not call them a moron or a **** for not knowing art.

[chaz wyman]

Addendum:

As to the, "Genetics of aggression:" "Genetic-developmental theory states that individual differences in a continuous phenotype result from the action of a large number of genes, each exerting an effect that works with environmental factors to produce the trait."
--Tremblay, Richard E., Hartup, Willard W. and Archer, John (eds.) (2005). Developmental Origins of Aggression. New York: The Guilford Press. ISBN 1-59385-110-3.--

sob:Hey I wonder if Poverty would qualify as an environmental factor???

AS: I never said it didn't at all...I simply said these are not "facts". Obviously this quote says It "works with" environmental factors and to produce the trait. It still doesn't answer why there are many more people in "poverty" who do not turn to acts of aggression or crime.

But maybe you could answer me this....I know you think I was talking about the gene that produces skin color...but I was not I never said that. I was talking about something deeper. I watched this show once where all these famous people (of all ethnic groups) were taking a dna test to see what there genetic background was. I remember there being a black woman who was a black history professor at a prestigious college taking the test. She was very surprised to learn that the test came back that she was 70% european and 30% african. She thought she was mostly african. There was other tests as well....I think it was eva mendes who thought she was of mexican decent but it turned out she had zero mexican in her and was all european or something like that. I don't remember the exact figures.

Just because someone has dark skin doesn't make me think they are african or from poverty or aggressive ....I know what you are saying about skin color is true. What I am not understanding how you can think aggression is linked to poverty when there are just as many aggressive elitists (as you yourself said when you said that is how they got there in the first place). So how exactly is it that you see a link between poverty and aggression or crime? How do you account for the people in poverty who do not turn to crime?

Also, this is another thing I don't understand. As you say, we came from a single orgin. Did animals also come from a single orgin too? Because I would like to discuss dog breeds. What confuses me is how we can say that such and such dog is bred for this or that...whether it is hunting, or being gentle or whatever. Did animals evolve under a different set of rules? If not...then why is it that we can see a difference in certain breeds but not in humans?

Yes, there certainly was a different set of rules.
You should consult Darwin's chapter on Domestication in his Origin of Species for your answer; it was through this example that Darwin worked out the whole show. In fact if I remember he opens the book with this topic.

Despite the controlled breeding of dogs and other domesticated animals, there is still little ultimate difference between them.
But the main point is that humans, more than any other animal, are more reliant on learning and experience than on genetic programming. You can't treat people in the same way you treat dogs.
A slave can learn how to be a king. a female dog is always a bitch.

I know to you my questions seems lame. But that sounds pretty mean to me and discriminatory if in fact I have not learned these things before...and esp. if you think I am a moron not as intelligent as you are. Is this the way you treat others who are less fortunate than yourself? You ridicule them? If you noticed, I did not ridicule you for not knowing the jargon of artists. To me it is common knowledge because that is all I cared to learn as a child. But I understand that others have other interests. I would not call them a moron or a **** for not knowing art.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Addendum:

As to the, "Genetics of aggression:" "Genetic-developmental theory states that individual differences in a continuous phenotype result from the action of a large number of genes, each exerting an effect that works with environmental factors to produce the trait."
--Tremblay, Richard E., Hartup, Willard W. and Archer, John (eds.) (2005). Developmental Origins of Aggression. New York: The Guilford Press. ISBN 1-59385-110-3.--

sob:Hey I wonder if Poverty would qualify as an environmental factor???

AS: I never said it didn't at all...I simply said these are not "facts". Obviously this quote says It "works with" environmental factors and to produce the trait. It still doesn't answer why there are many more people in "poverty" who do not turn to acts of aggression or crime.
This must be your problem then, as you seem not to be capable of discerning the most important part of the quote above. The most important part in absolutely not "works with," For you to pick that as an argument means you and your argument, thus blame, is more important than the problem. I, on the other hand, care more about the problem than our argument such that to me, and rightfully so, the most important part of the quote is, "to produce the trait." I don't know if you're familiar with fire and it's triangle of existence. It is composed of fuel, oxygen and finally heat. If you remove any one of the three, then the fire cannot exist. Fireman don't sit around arguing about which of the three is to blame, they simply remove the quickest and easiest part of the triangle. Can you remove a persons genes? Of course not, but can you remove them from the environmental that is responsible for the 'production of the trait? Of course you can! And thus unknowingly, your example is that of bigotry and racism being perpetuated, can you see that now?

"Blame, matters not, but for the instant of it's acknowledgment, that sets you on a corrective course. Any belief otherwise, has no wisdom, and is born of fools, that can't see the forest for the trees."

But maybe you could answer me this....I know you think I was talking about the gene that produces skin color...but I was not I never said that. I was talking about something deeper. I watched this show once where all these famous people (of all ethnic groups) were taking a dna test to see what there genetic background was. I remember there being a black woman who was a black history professor at a prestigious college taking the test. She was very surprised to learn that the test came back that she was 70% european and 30% african. She thought she was mostly african. There was other tests as well....I think it was eva mendes who thought she was of mexican decent but it turned out she had zero mexican in her and was all european or something like that. I don't remember the exact figures.
No I did not think that, I saw another side of it, but I'm surprised, that you ignored the following quote I referenced, or maybe not.

"Since the 1960's a majority of scientists have come to understand the concept of race as a social construct mapped on to phenotypes in different culturally determined ways, and not as a biological concept. A 2000 study by Celera Genomics found that human beings largely have similar genetic input, and that citizens of any given village in the world, whether in Scotland or Tanzania, hold 90 percent of the genetic variability that humanity has to offer. The study found only .01% of genes account for a person's external appearance."
--Do Races Differ? Not Really, DNA Shows". The New York Times. 22 August 2000.

Got anything to say about that?


Just because someone has dark skin doesn't make me think they are african or from poverty or aggressive ....I know what you are saying about skin color is true. What I am not understanding how you can think aggression is linked to poverty when there are just as many aggressive elitists (as you yourself said when you said that is how they got there in the first place). So how exactly is it that you see a link between poverty and aggression or crime? How do you account for the people in poverty who do not turn to crime?
See, at the top of this message, your quote of my last message, and my rebuttal below it, created during this message, above in blue, to find your answer.


Also, this is another thing I don't understand. As you say, we came from a single orgin. Did animals also come from a single orgin too? Because I would like to discuss dog breeds. What confuses me is how we can say that such and such dog is bred for this or that...whether it is hunting, or being gentle or whatever. Did animals evolve under a different set of rules? If not...then why is it that we can see a difference in certain breeds but not in humans?
I take it you are a creationist, so your belief would preclude my explanation, because from an evolutionary standpoint, it's all the same thing, since that puddle of primordial ooze, that produced those chemicals of life all those millions of years ago. But I shall say this: dog psychologists have stated that as to a articular dogs disposition, environment is the key factor. I know of pit bull terrier's that are as sweet as they can be, it's just an extremely bad idea to force them to live in the poverty (if you will) of mistreatment.


I know to you my questions seems lame. But that sounds pretty mean to me and discriminatory if in fact I have not learned these things before...and esp. if you think I am a moron not as intelligent as you are. Is this the way you treat others who are less fortunate than yourself? You ridicule them? If you noticed, I did not ridicule you for not knowing the jargon of artists. To me it is common knowledge because that is all I cared to learn as a child. But I understand that others have other interests. I would not call them a moron or a **** for not knowing art.
I agree, I got frustrated with your stonewalling, as with your reasoning, but you have to admit, that you were a part of the hostility (aggression) escalating, I mean, I don't really think I qualify as a 'dipwad,' do you, really?

[chaz wyman]

The main problem here is that race is still the obsession of the scientistic ideology of the US and elsewhere. That is the assertion that the whole world can be reduced and understood by atomistic investigation.
Such an approach tends to look at the fixed easily study-able aspects and such study prefigures that such answers that it can only find have to somehow explain the object of its enquiry. Such are the failings of the old Paradigm - the age-old "its all about breeding" which was turned by Francis Galton's biometrics and eugenics to the desolation of Nazi politics.

What it ignores is those aspects of human development that are not set in stone, but those we can actually do something about; social environments and structure; education; learning; nurture; rehabilitation; life planning.
But there are elements in the US that would prefer to demand that differences inability, wealth and privilege are things we can do nothing about - they insist they are hardwired into our brains, fixed by a stranglehold of racial and genetic determinism. Why would people prefer to follow this path of Nature over Nurture?

Why would they ignore the simple fact that the improvement of every human is in our hands? Why would they rather doom millions of the poor to the 'inevitable' poverty of the just not good enough, and demand that it is all their own fault? Is it because they would rather look out for themselves and ignore the health of their own people by denying people of colour a place at the table?
Insisting that blacks are better at running and jumping is simply another code for - those dam niggers don't deserve a decent job or a decant life because they are not like us. They are made different!
This is just another way to wash hands of the responsibility that every member of society ought to have for their fellows.

The road to a better society is not through race, as race is arbitrary discrimination and encourages the self identification of the groups and the ghettoisation of the social milieu. Blacks thus participate in their own oppression.

[artisticsolution]

Okay Sob, I am beginning to understand our miscommunication. I know in your eyes I am guilty of racism by association. And I will allow you to your opinion. But I am still going to try at least to get you to understand my line of reasoning because alot of what you are arguing against is not what I have said. All I am asking you to do is put aside your prejudice toward me for a moment in order that you can at least try to understand that I have many question and perhaps they don't come from a racist place? I think the problem is that I have always had a hard time communicating. You don't know anything about me but I have always stated in this forum that I have a hard time with language. Just ask any one who went through the long discussion about the word "manipulate." Anyway, at least give me the benefit of the doubt?

As to the, "Genetics of aggression:" "Genetic-developmental theory states that individual differences in a continuous phenotype result from the action of a large number of genes, each exerting an effect that works with environmental factors to produce the trait."
--Tremblay, Richard E., Hartup, Willard W. and Archer, John (eds.) (2005). Developmental Origins of Aggression. New York: The Guilford Press. ISBN 1-59385-110-3.--

SOB The most important part in absolutely not "works with," For you to pick that as an argument means you and your argument, thus blame, is more important than the problem.

AS:I am not blaming anyone for anything. You however are blaming me of racism.

SOB: I, on the other hand, care more about the problem than our argument such that to me, and rightfully so, the most important part of the quote is, "to produce the trait." I don't know if you're familiar with fire and it's triangle of existence. It is composed of fuel, oxygen and finally heat. If you remove any one of the three, then the fire cannot exist. Fireman don't sit around arguing about which of the three is to blame, they simply remove the quickest and easiest part of the triangle.

AS:Okay, thank you. This makes sense to me. However, just as I have been wrong in certain areas, I think you are wrong here. If we were talking about any other subject about humanity, and you said that if we remove a certain factor...whether it be poverty, religion, racism, etc. and we could then have peace. I would disagree. I think there would be something else to fight about. There will always be something that someone else wants. Let me give you a simplistic example. The shore line is prime property. Some one will always want to live near the shore. Let's call them shore people. Now even if everything was the same and there was no poverty and no one could purchase any land....more people would want to live near the shore. However, there is only limited "shore space." And here's the thing....most people don't like other people all up in their "space." There would still be aggression.

Here's another simplistic idea. There will always be beautiful women that men will fight for.

Here's another one. There will always be the strong that prey on the weak.

So you see, it is not as simple as the triangle of existence, at least to me. Now I ask you...does this mean I am racist?

SOB:Can you remove a persons genes? Of course not, but can you remove them from the environmental that is responsible for the 'production of the trait? Of course you can! And thus unknowingly, your example is that of bigotry and racism being perpetuated, can you see that now?

AS: Okay, now this is a 2 part question because you have mention 2 things. You mention removing a persons gene and removing them from the environment responsible for the production of the trait.

As for the persons genes...(oh before I begin I wanted to mention that throughout this whole thing I have never said that blacks were the aggressors and whites werent. I said that there may be a gene responsible. But we will get to that later below) OK...As for a person's genes, I was imagining we fast forward through time to a place where science has understood more about the brain and how it works and more about genes and how they work.

I hope we are in agreement that science will continue to make new discoveries and that what we know now... will not be all we can ever know...right?

Okay, so when and if these discovery's are made...and we have found a fact....that maybe certain gene is responsible....why do you think I think that gene will be a black gene? Where have I ever laid blame to a certain group? Yes...I mentioned certain groups...as I am sure all of us know there is a difference in appearances. But I did not lay blame. I even asked how did you account for those in poverty who DO NOT commit crime...also...how do you account for those in the elite who do commit crime? For me it is not enough to say if we removed their environment they would then be little pollyanna's. I just happen to think they would find something else to fight about. Remember when you talked about testosterone being part of the reason for aggression? Well, please stay on that page...because that is what I am talking about...a gene that can produce traits like testosterone. Now...I want you to ask yourself this...does anyone put "blame" onto men instead of women in a general sense? I would say the answer is no.....I mean we all can see more men in general being in prison...those are the facts...But I doubt we "blame" them in a racist/sexist type way to any real extent. It just is... and we can say it without fear of going into this "BLAME" thing you talk about. Now I hope we can get over this hurdle:

"Blame, matters not, but for the instant of it's acknowledgment, that sets you on a corrective course. Any belief otherwise, has no wisdom, and is born of fools, that can't see the forest for the trees."

More in a minute....

[artisticsolution]

Continued...

SOB:No I did not think that, I saw another side of it, but I'm surprised, that you ignored the following quote I referenced, or maybe not.

"Since the 1960's a majority of scientists have come to understand the concept of race as a social construct mapped on to phenotypes in different culturally determined ways, and not as a biological concept. A 2000 study by Celera Genomics found that human beings largely have similar genetic input, and that citizens of any given village in the world, whether in Scotland or Tanzania, hold 90 percent of the genetic variability that humanity has to offer. The study found only .01% of genes account for a person's external appearance."
--Do Races Differ? Not Really, DNA Shows". The New York Times. 22 August 2000.

Got anything to say about that?[/color]

AS: I did not disagree with that. But I don't think that is the end all and be all of genetic inquiry. I don't think that is all we will ever know about genes. It's just my opinion that you do. And I think you are wrongly using it in order to justify your belief that I am a racist. Now please allow me to explain what I mean/see:

The study (with the famous people /eva mendes) above corresponds with your quote it doesn't contridict it. I can agree to your quote. There is no reason to think that white people have all "white" genes if you will and black people have all "black.' Which is why I tried to explain myself in the above study of the famous people who were surprised to find out they did not have the "genes" they thought they had from looking at their skin. Let's suppose that science someday found that the "white" gene was responsible for all aggression? Do you think that would mean that people would lay blame or should? Again...I say it would become just a fact and would be put off to the side like when we found out testosterone may be the reason men may be more aggressive.

They may never find a link in genes...but there is also the brain. Science does not understand all the parts of the brain and how it works. Is it possible that they may find that people with more aggression have a unique "thing" in their frontal lobe...for example? Is that possible? I think it could be possible. SO lets suppose science finds out something like that...does it mean that we will then resort to the "blame" game? Does it mean they will for sure find out it's a black gene responsible? No...again I think it could be anything...but if it happens to be prevalent in brains which hold a certain gene...kinda like how there are certain disease in certain races....then again...I think it would be just a fact...like testosterone.

Here is a wikipedia article....tell me...do we "Blame" or label certain races as less than because they have certain disease that are more common in their genetic backgroud? Most certainly not. When I say that...I get the feeling you are hearing me say, "we should blame black people" I am not saying anything of the sort! I think you should read back through all of these post so that you can understand that you are accusing me of being racist merely for asking questions that you are conditioned to read as having racist undertones instead of reading my question with care and diligence. The way I word things is more complicated than it appears. It is a mistake to jump to conclusions a skim past my posts and get the true essence of what I am saying. In order to understand...you have to clear your mind of your prejudice and read very slowly like we are having a conversation and you can hear my voice. Sorry about that...but it is my limitation at having very poor communication skills.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_health


SOB: I take it you are a creationist, so your belief would preclude my explanation, because from an evolutionary standpoint, it's all the same thing, since that puddle of primordial ooze, that produced those chemicals of life all those millions of years ago.

AS:No I am not a creationist. But I will admit I have never read about Darwin. You must know that my existence thus far has been interested in 2 things....art and having babies. Now that I am older and the kids are raised and my career is in a good place, I have branched out to philosophy and just now have begun reading. There isn't enough hours for me to catch up...but I am trying.


SOB: But I shall say this: dog psychologists have stated that as to a articular dogs disposition, environment is the key factor. I know of pit bull terrier's that are as sweet as they can be, it's just an extremely bad idea to force them to live in the poverty (if you will) of mistreatment.

AS: Dog psychologists? Um...Okay.

SOB: I agree, I got frustrated with your stonewalling, as with your reasoning, but you have to admit, that you were a part of the hostility (aggression) escalating, I mean, I don't really think I qualify as a 'dipwad,' do you, really?[/color]

AS: Agreed...I was frustrated too. Sorry I called you a "dipwad." Trust me...I am not "stone walling" I am trying to get you to get past thinking I am a racist in order to have a "real" conversation because we can never have an understanding while you are thinking I am the "enemy."

[SpheresOfBalance]

Okay Sob, I am beginning to understand our miscommunication. I know in your eyes I am guilty of racism by association. And I will allow you to your opinion. But I am still going to try at least to get you to understand my line of reasoning because alot of what you are arguing against is not what I have said. All I am asking you to do is put aside your prejudice toward me for a moment in order that you can at least try to understand that I have many question and perhaps they don't come from a racist place? I think the problem is that I have always had a hard time communicating. You don't know anything about me but I have always stated in this forum that I have a hard time with language. Just ask any one who went through the long discussion about the word "manipulate." Anyway, at least give me the benefit of the doubt?

As to the, "Genetics of aggression:" "Genetic-developmental theory states that individual differences in a continuous phenotype result from the action of a large number of genes, each exerting an effect that works with environmental factors to produce the trait."
--Tremblay, Richard E., Hartup, Willard W. and Archer, John (eds.) (2005). Developmental Origins of Aggression. New York: The Guilford Press. ISBN 1-59385-110-3.--

SOB The most important part in absolutely not "works with," For you to pick that as an argument means you and your argument, thus blame, is more important than the problem.

AS:I am not blaming anyone for anything. You however are blaming me of racism.

What you seem to forget, is that the thread starter indicated that, blacks show a predisposition for violent crime. Then you chime in, with respect to his argument, saying that you believe blacks are differentiated by their genes, which is blaming the problem on their very essence, such that it's virtually impossible for them to fix, except through interracial breeding. In other words that their color is flawed on a very fundamental level.

See below:

Original Poster:

...Generally, blacks, who constitute about 12% of the US population, commit violent crimes disproportionate to their representation in the general population...

...And, given their propensity toward criminal conduct, I’m very wary whenever I encounter any black teenagers or adults, male or female...

You:

I don't remember who the comedian was but I remember the punchline,

"When's the last time you saw a Swede hijack an airplane?"

LOL

I have to admit...

But then again I am half Mexican...and I must say....I do feel I am more "hot blooded" than some of my lily white friends.

Also, I wonder if there is something to be said about certain tendencies among races. Sort of like there is in breeds of dogs. I mean we have no problem talking about the temperament of certain breeds. We know that some breeds are more likely to bite than others. Could it be the same with people?

I say we can't get mixed soon enough! I am so sick to death of the race bullshit. Do you think there will ever come a day?

Sure you try and soften it a bit by including your race and then saying you want it to end, but you still had indicated that you believe their genes are, in essence, defective when concerned with peace.

I think you should explore, why it is, that you think you are "hot blooded" as compared to your "lily white friends," as it may be due to something other than your, genes. Unless of course you prefer to 'blame' your genes to somehow negate your responsibility as to your aggression. Maybe you sense racism in the way they talk to you. Only you can answer these questions, for yourself.


SOB: I, on the other hand, care more about the problem than our argument such that to me, and rightfully so, the most important part of the quote is, "to produce the trait." I don't know if you're familiar with fire and it's triangle of existence. It is composed of fuel, oxygen and finally heat. If you remove any one of the three, then the fire cannot exist. Fireman don't sit around arguing about which of the three is to blame, they simply remove the quickest and easiest part of the triangle.

AS:Okay, thank you. This makes sense to me. However, just as I have been wrong in certain areas, I think you are wrong here. If we were talking about any other subject about humanity, and you said that if we remove a certain factor...whether it be poverty, religion, racism, etc. and we could then have peace. I would disagree. I think there would be something else to fight about. There will always be something that someone else wants. Let me give you a simplistic example. The shore line is prime property. Some one will always want to live near the shore. Let's call them shore people. Now even if everything was the same and there was no poverty and no one could purchase any land....more people would want to live near the shore. However, there is only limited "shore space." And here's the thing....most people don't like other people all up in their "space." There would still be aggression.

Here's another simplistic idea. There will always be beautiful women that men will fight for.

Here's another one. There will always be the strong that prey on the weak.

So you see, it is not as simple as the triangle of existence, at least to me. Now I ask you...does this mean I am racist?

SOB:Can you remove a persons genes? Of course not, but can you remove them from the environmental that is responsible for the 'production of the trait? Of course you can! And thus unknowingly, your example is that of bigotry and racism being perpetuated, can you see that now?

AS: Okay, now this is a 2 part question because you have mention 2 things. You mention removing a persons gene and removing them from the environment responsible for the production of the trait.

As for the persons genes...(oh before I begin I wanted to mention that throughout this whole thing I have never said that blacks were the aggressors and whites werent. I said that there may be a gene responsible. But we will get to that later below) OK...As for a person's genes, I was imagining we fast forward through time to a place where science has understood more about the brain and how it works and more about genes and how they work.

I hope we are in agreement that science will continue to make new discoveries and that what we know now... will not be all we can ever know...right?

Okay, so when and if these discovery's are made...and we have found a fact....that maybe certain gene is responsible....why do you think I think that gene will be a black gene? Where have I ever laid blame to a certain group? Yes...I mentioned certain groups...as I am sure all of us know there is a difference in appearances. But I did not lay blame. I even asked how did you account for those in poverty who DO NOT commit crime...also...how do you account for those in the elite who do commit crime? For me it is not enough to say if we removed their environment they would then be little pollyanna's. I just happen to think they would find something else to fight about. Remember when you talked about testosterone being part of the reason for aggression? Well, please stay on that page...because that is what I am talking about...a gene that can produce traits like testosterone. Now...I want you to ask yourself this...does anyone put "blame" onto men instead of women in a general sense? I would say the answer is no.....I mean we all can see more men in general being in prison...those are the facts...But I doubt we "blame" them in a racist/sexist type way to any real extent. It just is... and we can say it without fear of going into this "BLAME" thing you talk about. Now I hope we can get over this hurdle:

"Blame, matters not, but for the instant of it's acknowledgment, that sets you on a corrective course. Any belief otherwise, has no wisdom, and is born of fools, that can't see the forest for the trees."

More in a minute....

[Kayla]

This thread is about the incidence (not their motives, or their reasons for acting, or social conditions) for the disproportionate black crime rate generally and regarding blacks offending against blacks.

what specifically about this incidence that interests you if its not motives social conditions etc

why does this interest you

[Kayla]

If everyone is the same...then why aren't women committing crimes at as big of numbers as men?

maybe women are just getting away with them more

girls and women unless they are unusually looking - either very good looking or very ugly - are often invisible

i can sit within the field of vision of people talking about personal stuff or confidential stuff or in one case state secrets and as long as i do not make any sudden movements and remain silent i am invisible

this would make committing crimes easier

also the police are very likely to assume that the perp is a man

[artisticsolution]

SOB: What you seem to forget, is that the thread starter indicated that, blacks show a predisposition for violent crime. Then you chime in, with respect to his argument, saying that you believe blacks are differentiated by their genes, which is blaming the problem on their very essence, such that it's virtually impossible for them to fix, except through interracial breeding. In other words that their color is flawed on a very fundamental level.

AS: Ohhhhhhhh...okay...now I see where you are coming from. Oh yes...I see how it it certainly does seem like I am a racist to you. And I can see why now. Thanks. Well...can I plead epistemology then?

God...it's been such a long time since I have these same thought that you are having that I totally forgot what it is like to 'feel' harm. I am sooo sorry....truly I am. Let me try to explain...still.... I don't think you will understand... not that you are stupid or I am...but it would be impossible for you to walk in my shoes and visa versa...understand?...and so I totally will understand that you think I am a racist and that's ok. I won't hold it against you. Because you can't possibly understand what goes on inside me...my whole total thought process combined...just as I cannot know yours.

You see, I am not one to get offended very easily. I used to be....but then something changed in my life and I discovered I had been wrong about people and that I was doing myself a great disservice by underestimating people if you will...and labeling them before I knew their total being. Not that that is always possible...but you know what I mean...the difference between superficial skin color and what is in their hearts.

I won't go into the details...because you weren't there or inside me in order to make the same distinctions. See, when I was young I had a girlfriend who was just like me...we were soul sisters...still are. We look alike, we think alike....it's like we are twins. So when we first met she told her dad she met the nicest person....and she told him my name...which is hispanic. She did not know what race it was....she never heard the name before and neither did she think in those terms of hateful bigotry. She just knew she liked me as a person. So her dad said..."Oh, she's a beaner." This is what she told me the next day...because she didn't really know what it meant....I laughed....because I liked her too...and I just figured her dad was a racist. No biggie.

So...after that...we became the best of friends...that was 25+ years ago. We were inseparable. Of course I met her dad....and ya know what? Turned out that was one of the most kind individuals I have ever met. He joked...he said off color remarks...but his actions spoke a different story. He loved me as a daughter and that was the first man (other than my grandfather) that was ever kind to me. Before him, I didn't respect men very much because it was all I was raised around...abusive ones. I didn't know there were nice ones. Seriously.

So anyway...he became my father too. And he was kind a generous to everyone. Would give the shirt off his back no matter what race you were. He simply liked to speak vinegar....kinda like Chaz.

Now that may sound strange to you. And you may think to yourself that I was/am naive. But you could not know that because you weren't there. You can't know what I know. It's impossible.

So, as to Tom's thread. I have known Tom for a while...and what I have gathered is he is a kind man. Yes...a little sexist and possibly racist....but that could be remnants from his generation. And plus I can't know what he knows. I am pretty certain though...he doesn't kill or abuse people in his spare time though...just a hunch...lol. I could be wrong. And if I am then yes...he is a racist. But I will not become one of these people who just because their boss asks them on a date screams "sexists!" and gets him fired....or one of these people who puts their daughter's boyfriend of 2 years behind bars for sexual molestation just because he turned 18 today and she is 17 until next month. Or someone who calls for the head of a coach because he happen to call someone a slut. These are superficial nothingness in most circumstances and feeling "harm" to the point of absurdity is ridicules. In my mind.

But that's just the way I think. Again...let's look at the definition of racism:

"Racism is the belief that inherent different traits in human racial groups justify discrimination."

My reading/interpretation of this lies mostly in the phrase "justify discrimination." It doesn't lie in "different traits in human racial groups." Obviously there are different superficial trait like skin color. But that doesn't mean to say so means you will necessarily discriminate. So the title of this thread is definitely controversial...but is it racist? Does it call to arms for something to be done or does it merely mention the superficial?

Let suppose this thread said, "Men and crime." It would be controversial...but would it be sexist knowing what we know about testosterone? I suppose some would say yes, the ones who felt harm from free speech...and some would say no...the ones who felt that it takes more than merely mentioning something in order to fight back...it take actual "harm" as in wanting to kill, or enslave or not allow equality or other such things that prevent people from living in the manner that they prefer. I believe that the former instance...the one where we keep people from having free speech about superficial things is akin to a preemptive strike. Because most of those people who believe speech should be limited...only believe it should be limited to those words they find harmful...but not the words that others may find harmful. For example....A person who is against another person making a correlation between blacks and crime but then make a similar statement by making a correlation between religious people and crime.

SOB: I think you should explore, why it is, that you think you are "hot blooded" as compared to your "lily white friends," as it may be due to something other than your, genes. Unless of course you prefer to 'blame' your genes to somehow negate your responsibility as to your aggression. Maybe you sense racism in the way they talk to you. Only you can answer these questions, for yourself.

AS: I am not in argument it may be something other than genes.... environment is to blame too in all honesty...but so is passion... impatience... and a whole other host of temperaments. If it was all environmental...that would mean we were all the same and would have no other choice than to be like whatever environment we were from. But then we don't see that happening do we...we don't see all poverty stricken people turn to crime. We don't see all "kind" rich people. We see thieves in the rich and poor alike. But I think what you are missing here is the daring to speak the forbidden in order to get to truth. What truth I don't know...we don't have all the facts. But even you admitted testosterone is to blame for men being more aggressive than women. Does that mean you are sexist? No. It would be absurd to think you were sexist over such a fact...right? It is only sexist if you use your power to keep women down or to harm them? Right? Same with being racist. And it is not racist to say so...it's just an inquiry.

As for Tom. Tom, is entitled to fear whom he pleases....he is NOT, however, entitled to harm them or make them less than.


Getting back to Nietzsche...when he said:

"Strength which prefers questions for which no one today is sufficiently daring; courage for the forbidden"

The reading I got from this quote is that "strength" is to question that we dare not think. To me that doesn't mean that we go along with the "trend" of what society says is righteous or what we think is righteous...because to do so is not daring.It is However, daring if you can think a thing that would make you a certain outcast in society...and even something that you hate to admit or hear yourself say...then that is the courage to think the "forbidden". It takes "strength to think thoughts that are not considered "righteous". Anyone can think a thought that make them feel as if they are making the world a better place.

This is not to say I think I am right and you are wrong. You may be completely correct that I am a racist...at least in your understanding of the word. But does your opinion necessarily mean that I am? it could be that I am not...but you could never know until you walk in my shoes.